Popular Post Prefontaine Posted December 12, 2019 Author Popular Post Share Posted December 12, 2019 6 minutes ago, Keegoz said: I am combating you because you're at war with me and because it seems you have an intent to disband this coalition or knock it so far into the dirt that you'll have a advantage that can never be questioned. I know you enjoy making boogeymans out of everyone but you made me your enemy not the other way around. This right here is sort of the point of this thread. Both sides have a perception of the other, and a perception of what they think the other thinks about them. If you actually sit down and talk to each other honestly, you'll find everything has been blown out of proportion and there is a ground that both sides can stand upon and work this situation out. There has been a lot of stuff thrown around this war and if you can step back and try to look at it without your sides mindset, you can see things a little clearer. I talked to Roq recently regarding the logs and told him that there's some pretty damning stuff in there. There is. However if some of my old coalition leadership logs leaked there'd be some pretty damning stuff in there too. In wars like these, morale comes at a premium and sometimes you have to gas yourselves up to keep grinding it out -- even when winning. I'm sure somewhere along the lines I've said like I want to roll them out of the game, when all I really mean is I just wanna roll them. The point is no one really has clean hands in this mess, arguing about who has dirtier hands isn't going to solve things. Respectful dialog is a must, trying to look at things with less bias is important. If we can do that, small pockets of trust can be built and the there's a chance for actual peace and progress. 3 7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Bolivar Posted December 12, 2019 Share Posted December 12, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, Roquentin said: I'm talking about a particular type of dissent. The dissent has been one largely related to material concerns throughout the war. If the material concerns weren't an issue and no one had to sacrifice stuff, then we'd have only ideological dissent at most which would be low. That's now yeah. I know plenty of coal A people who are just waiting for the war to end to get active again since they don't want to bother with the guerilla tactics. We're not trying to kill whole communities. They're still around. It's not any hint. It's a consolidated group that has indicate its intention for quite some time. It won't be a stagnant wasteland where no one does anything but buy cities. If anything, this has helped curb inflation in that regard. Most of our problems in the war have been precisely because people want to buy stuff and just build without warring. The challenge would still be there. I mean, we had EM using his nation size to get out of justice and Coalition A rallying around him and his vision has always been buying cities endlessly. You might want to look in the other direction if you want to talk about just buying cities and not fighting. I think you're alone in this type of stance. Most people on your side are happy with what Adrienne, Keegoz, Theo, Buorhann, Sketchy, and so on have been doing. With KT, it's hard to tell what te actual motivations are given the evacuation of principal leaders has been to combat "IQ" from a distance. They don't agree with your assessment for sure and they've been deadset on unifying more. This isn't really about people who jumped in as rerolls or new players in the middle to be honest, so I can get why you're more irritated since you're not a stakeholder. It's less about just shitting on people and strategy. I mean, like I said, I wouldn't be opposed to letting people who aren't integral go to a POW AA or somewhere else since it's not about your rerolled nation or any of the other people who came in and joined a TKR, TGH, etc. We don't care about setting you back personally. You don't have the stuff they do. I mean, if you're hurting that much I'm sure tS or TKR can spare you some stuff from their infinite hoards of cash. No one seems upset with any of them. Like I said I'm sympathetic if you feel this way genuinely but it's not the case in terms of what the brass has in mind on your side. It doesn't matter if he has authority or not. I didn't say tS' leader said it. I said someone on your end could see the rationale and knows it's not in our strategic interest. This is especially given you feel you were betrayed and have continuously used the logs to illustrate some sort of innocence on your end and victimhood. Heh, im not actually hurting cashwise or resource wise to the point where I need any help at all. If you know what you are doing, it's pretty easy middle tier ( if 16 is even the middle tier anymore?) and downwards to fight and exist off loot alone and stash some away for a rebuild. It's probably another reason why continuing the war at this stage in an attempt to burn resources is maybe futile since cheap infantry based war is largely self-funding and profitable if done correctly with some luck. But yeah, asides from that, I suppose we generally agree on most other things. That's if we are both being genuine of course. I've said my piece and will let pref have his topic back for its intended purpose ? Edited December 12, 2019 by Charles the Tyrant 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Cooper_ Posted December 12, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted December 12, 2019 (edited) 8 hours ago, Roquentin said: When the last war was ongoing, people raised the question of what would happen after. Would TKR/Guardian/GOB/etc. be more angry at the ex-EMC who had hit them or at Inquisition? The question was answered pretty quickly. It would be Inquisition. They coalesced with their brethren who had fought them and their brethren who had sat out the war to plot against the Inquisition. Their battlecry had always been that Inquisition was seemingly overpowered. Even though steps were being taken to fulfill the split, it became an uneasy affair when the knowledge became known the more rambunctious half would be likely targeted regardless. Thus, a stipulation was asked for to the FA head of tS that if the rest of the game ganged up on them, we would have the ability to enter. We knew their condition was relatively fragile. They had been targeted about a year before and largely heckled for their decision to stick with IQ before that and it did have an impact on the economies of all the alliances on that side. The answer was that by the end of KF, we had a choice to hate everyone or to move on. We chose the latter because grudges are pointless in the meta and it would clearly not be strategically sound to hate the 30 alliances that just rolled us. Ever since we dropped EMC in early 2018, our goal was to make a more interesting meta, and after KF we saw lots of opportunities save the giant treaty spam of stagnation that was IQ. We wanted to get rid of the hegemony of the game and to continue to add to what we saw as a dynamic future. During the formation of Chaos, the minisphere idea was a key idea that linked our desires with a realistic FA path to achieve it. Yes, our vision for the game required the dismantling of IQ because minispheres and the then IQ hegemony were mutually exclusive. This meant working with people who had just hit us and finding common ground with old enemies. Many of our plans were leaked by Sphinx. If you read them, none point to personal grudges against the constituent alliances of IQ rather just the bloc itself. If another hegemony had arisen that threw our desires for the game asunder, then we would've had the same response. 8 hours ago, Roquentin said: In contrast, EMC had barely been impacted by Knightfall. The attrition was the real damage and that was because they had coddled those members for years by avoiding harder fights in the upper tier. The TKR low gov had openly stated at the start of Knightfall that the war would accomplish nothing. As a result, the only damage done was losing members who could not cope with the hard fight. The financial dominance of former EMC was not affected in the slightest by the war. They felt entitled to beat down their traditional bugbears, however. When they interrupted their playfight, it became clear that they would be in an unparalleled position of dominance if the BK/COvsphere could not hold them off. One war had done little to them aside from the attrition. They were back to full form or as full as they could be given the attrition partially offset by the incorporation of KT/TGH/Oblivion and Rose to a lesser extent. They all cackled with glee at their initial success and only bad things could result. Rumors of forced treaty cancellations circulated. I think your opening line seems a bit contradictory. Attrition is a significant impact. TKR lost a third of its memberbase, its upper tier was essentially gone, and it ended KF with better part of 1000 cities less than it started. It was a hard hit, but we survived and we grew despite it not because some TKR low gov said so. However, this concept has nothing to do with the hit on BK/Cov. Its extreme bad faith to just not mention the logs and myriad of evidence that started this war in the first place. They wanted to hit Chaos and draft you in to hit KETOGG. The validity of that CB is night and day. There is even public evidence that shows that Cov had plans to hit Chaos during rebuild. The only choice that was made was when this war started not if. And its not as if Coalition A is our ideal coalition of alliances. We had just come out of a war with KETOGG, and we were definitely not fans of KT especially. Frankly, we have a lot more in common culturally with your own alliance, Roq, than anyone in KETOGG (which honestly would've been a really interesting result of the aforementioned ideology). After some events that transpired during Surf's Up, many in Chaos and TKR gov were not having it with KT. This isn't a relationship of anything besides what we saw as survival because that's what the BK/Cov threat merited. KETOG and Chaos were no long-term allies, and neither of them coveted hegemony nor could really be considered EMC. We thought this was going to be the fight for our lives, and it was quite surprising to us when BK sphere got rolled in just a few days. Personally, I went into this war thinking that I was going to get rolled twice in a row because BK sphere was so massive. Perhaps, y'all were smarter than us and saw correctly that BK would crumple and offer no significant resistance, but we most certainly did not. It was a fight of the survival of our blocs, our alliances and of our ideology. And this is why TKR especially pushed as hard as it did to not expand the war you. We had believed your lack of relation to the initial logs and we knew that NPO's entry would ensure bipolarity, anathema to our ideals. After we saw a victory in sight for the war, our goals were simply to try to break up what we perceived as the hegemony of the game and end the war with three simple, easy terms. A big part of our goals is short, more frequent wars with less animosity, and at the moment we thought it possible even for a global war as such: a rolling, war goals achieved and peace. 8 hours ago, Roquentin said: When we chose to try to make it a non-curbstomp, their entitlement incensed them into a rage and they vowed permanent enmity more or less. Simply not winning against "IQ" was beneath them. Only they could bring each other down. No one else. The rubicon had been crossed and it was clear they would not take it as a normal war. It was an existential struggle and they would only change their minds when it stopped going well for them. The words were not forgotten and it was clear who would benefit more from a quick peace. The historical elites sought to entrench themselves further and go for a better shot and with tS most likely with them. We dealt with the threat when they played their hand NPO's entry into the war changed all of this. It wasn't so much that we were losing. Remember that TKR had come out of KF just a few months prior and we were losing Surf's Up. Rather the problem was twofold. First, the ideals that we had were shattered. In the span of a DoW, the game snapped back into bipolarity with the same alliances against each other. What was TKR/KT/Rose (not a before-seen combination) against TcW/BK (similarly as unconventional) became TKR/KT/Rose vs. BK/NPO/Cov (IQ + TcW). Years of work on behalf of some of the Chaos alliances and even some in KETOGG was erased. It seemed at the time that no amount of relations-building, effort or even subjection to harm/risk would be enough to overcome the personal ties that bind us all in Orbis. IQ was too entrenched as a mindset. And for people like Sketchy, this hit a nerve. For something like 3 years, he had been working along with others across Orbis to change the meta out of bipolarity into something else. He made regrettable comments, which thankfully were disavowed months ago publicly by Hodor and coalition leaders. Second, NPO had broken the trust we had all placed in it to stay true to its breakup of IQ. We took a leap of faith when we believed NPO in its denial of involvement in Rainbow's leaks. We thought that good faith might lead somewhere in the future, or maybe it was the only way that we could keep the nightmare of bipolarity away. This was compounded by a shoddy CB, especially relative to the CB that started this war, against TKR, which is just a rehash of an age-old feud that I know TKR wanted desperately to put in the past in light of a path towards our desired meta. And the loss of trust just continued to compound. NPO broke T$' conditions, then they continually flopped on their reasons for attacking (even shifting to openly admitting that they did so in defenses of BK and the dynamic), to finally planning and conducting hostilities against a treatied ally. It seemed that there was no end to the breaking of precedent, and that this choice of NPO's was completely out of our control. 8 hours ago, Roquentin said: The other side knows that is is easier for them to financially set back Coalition B vs vice versa. Thus, they play the victim of the long war. A long war requires more discipline and it can get tiresome, but that is the hand we have had to play. The refusal to come to the table earlier pushed us into more extreme stances. When people abandoned the coalition when it was about a refusal to surrender, they did so on the premise of seeking shelter from hostile powers. When this type of precedent has been historically enabled, action is required to thwart it becoming a norm. It has become clear they will treat any war as a severely rancorous conflict if it is not a playfight. It's not about eliminating them but there is no other way to wear them down until a suitable deal can be reached. They'll be fine if it ever peaces. They brag about how well off they are. Don't worry about them. To make these matters worse, NPO didn't just play dirty during the war, but also in the preparations for peace talks. Possibly, the focus here shifts to the coalition as a whole, but undoubtedly NPO plays an integral role of enforcing these actions. There was an unprecedented ask for a surrender before talks even began combined with a condition of talks only one day a month although fortunately they were only asking for a NAP, surrender and meme terms. It took many months of back and forth in the coalition to come to terms with our defeat with what it meant for the meta and for our alliances. Finally, in November, both T$ and KERCHTOGG both surrendered, our representatives were trolled, ignored and gaslighted. They weren't shown the terms as promised nor were the terms just a NAP, surrender and meme terms. The argument they presented against us was that we had pushed this war thus far because of comments from Sketchy and co that "crossed the Rubicon," and yet months after these comments in late June/early July the offers for simple surrender and peace terms was still on the table. It finally reached a point where we our good faith had run out, and rightly so we concluded that there was no interest in real peace talks. Partisan makes his post after days of researching, looking for the required evidence and exposing the truth to the public on how peace talks were going. Our situation was untenable. Damned if we do and damned if we don't. Yet coalition B was slandering us publicly for the lack of progress. The choice was clear. Predictably, the stance of coalition B changed because a lot of their bs had been called out although the worst was yet to come. George and Kastor leaked devastating (or what should be devastating) logs from the upper echelons of coalition B's internals. On the public record, was Leo, Keshav, Roquentin, Under, TheNG stating that their intent with the peace talks was to attrition us to death, to disbandment. Now, I have always tried to see the bright side of things and engage with as much good faith as possible, but for me and many others in our coalition, that was the line. What NPO had decried for a refuted microcosm was being perpetrated on a mass-scale to heinous effect. It was hypocritical and it was unbelievable. That wound will need time to heal, but despite these damaging logs being thrown into the open Coalition B didn't flinch. They gaslighted, they deflected and they even tried to justify it. Roq, the golden rule stipulates "do to others what you wish to have done to yourself," and even the vestige of this cardinal value escapes the NPO and the actions it enforces. If you want to find your metaphorical "rubicon," then here it is. For the living humans behind the discord users, nations, forum accounts and everything that makes up our own communities and the Orbis community, I choose that hill to die on every time. And a note is that I address this post to NPO mostly because I see them as a principal agent in many of these actions and it is in response to your post. It is possible that at least some of this can be contributed to your coalition. 2 hours ago, Roquentin said: Not sure how I proved it. I would be paranoid and nothing would be good enough if the numbers stacked up in such a way, yeah, but it's not the case. It's been an uphill climb and when you've gotten this far, to give up the tenuous advantage you have is problematic. If we were really in the best position ever, then we wouldn't have had any dissent and these concerns wouldn't exist outside of my own if we were going with the concept of me being paranoid being a given. Here's a post acknowledging the situation: The thing is that pure hegemony isn't the point of this game. A lot of the above was about fleshing out how this game can be made better without it. I always find it funny that you were the one who coined EMC, easy-mode coalition. You had a point. This game is supposed to be a challenge in politics and in war. On that point, I'd like to say you usually make a great enemy and promise lots of fireworks and difficulties, and I respect that. To bested in the political theatre or mechanically in war is a part of the game, and the entertainment or the "fun" is overcoming those challenges with one's community to later become the defeater instead of the defeated. The evolution of paracov into IQ is a great example. Its simple choices that aren't always the easy path like BK leaving OO, TKR leaving EMC, or NPO originally joining up with cov that provide the dynamic framework that really lets these sims tick. I admonish you using your own words. Don't let Opus Dei become the new EMC. Different names, but the meaning still carries on. For the sake of NPO players and the orbis community, its not essential to milk out every little thing until you are unparalleled but to work in such a way that benefits your community. Evolving this game into a stagnated CN 2.0 isn't the way to achieve that. As I've said before, we're open to ideas on how to fix the game besides minispheres for the sake of a dynamic environment. And yet it's clear that consolidation, bipolarity and the sole desire for hegemony are only conducive for promoting stagnation and facilitating paranoia where none should exist. So @Prefontaine to answer your question after my magnum opus of a post. I think it boils down to three aspects. A difference in ideology of the future of the game. Personal relationships that have developed over time generally as a reflection of ideological alignments, mere exposure effect. Finally, a drastically distinct set of perceptions on the game, the meta and actions that we perceive to be justified or precedented. As a note though, I'm not a coalition leader, but I am intimately involved with TKR, the Chaos alliances and much of Coalition A in an FA setting. Edited December 12, 2019 by Cooper_ Grammar 17 10 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noctis Anarch Caelum Posted December 12, 2019 Share Posted December 12, 2019 (edited) What if we were to assume Coalition B lost their advantage part way through; while demanding these types of reps? Anyone think Coalition A would be lenient with the terms if Col B insisted on the really harsh ones until the tables turned? Would anything Col B is asking of Col A currently even relatively be unjust if used on Coalition B only after they end up completely defeated? Would every war after that have these types of terms considered the norm? If people come together on White Peace; most people have short enough attention spans that would overshadow most of their anger at NPO throughout this anyways.. Edited December 12, 2019 by Noctis Anarch Caelum Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keegoz Posted December 12, 2019 Share Posted December 12, 2019 18 minutes ago, Roquentin said: That's not really how it reads. It reads as if you are planning to do stuff in your new alliances to unify further I don't recall you being open about it. It has been confirmed that you and Chaos had planned to stick together post-war for several months now. Don't dress it up otherwise. I said it before, but the only thing that is harmful to you is attrition and there is no way of telling who is actually gone or who will come back post-war and is just chilling out. Any attrition is ultimately on you. With what you have accumulated there is no way to "eradicate" you, only decrease the gap by limiting further accumulation or terms. I made no announcement about my departure, I didn't even have internet access when it was announced I had left. I hit VM for my planned trip away and was told the night I was leaving to get my affairs in order because our departure was going to happen before the war concluded. Just because I wasn't open to you about it doesn't mean I wasn't open to others about it. You can ask abbas if you like because he was the one I talked to the most about it at the time (I was looking for somewhere that I could genuinely help out and TKR on the whole seemed fine but KT wasn't). Show me the log that details that we intended to stick with Chaos post-war. At best we thought we could convince them to join us in a war against someone else but were doubtful of it happening once we hit them. What's more is that we agreed that if we ever teamed up with Chaos, it would be a one time thing because we knew people like you would throw accusations that we were allied in some way. Working with Chaos wasn't even an isolated idea, I approached NPO and t$ as well but was promptly turned down. If you want to negotiate peace I am all ears, you didn't say a word last time but I'll gladly negotiate with you. That's of course if you have terms to present. 23 minutes ago, Prefontaine said: This right here is sort of the point of this thread. Both sides have a perception of the other, and a perception of what they think the other thinks about them. If you actually sit down and talk to each other honestly, you'll find everything has been blown out of proportion and there is a ground that both sides can stand upon and work this situation out. There has been a lot of stuff thrown around this war and if you can step back and try to look at it without your sides mindset, you can see things a little clearer. I talked to Roq recently regarding the logs and told him that there's some pretty damning stuff in there. There is. However if some of my old coalition leadership logs leaked there'd be some pretty damning stuff in there too. In wars like these, morale comes at a premium and sometimes you have to gas yourselves up to keep grinding it out -- even when winning. I'm sure somewhere along the lines I've said like I want to roll them out of the game, when all I really mean is I just wanna roll them. The point is no one really has clean hands in this mess, arguing about who has dirtier hands isn't going to solve things. Respectful dialog is a must, trying to look at things with less bias is important. If we can do that, small pockets of trust can be built and the there's a chance for actual peace and progress. Considering the delay in any peace actually occuring is because t$ and their allies still have no gotten any terms, there isn't a lot to talk about. That's basically where we're at. We left negotiating with wanting 2 things to proceed. The first was to know our terms and the other was for t$ to at least get terms. They've delayed the t$ terms to what seems to be indefinately. I agree, I've almost certainly said in the heat of the moment that I want to roll X alliance out of the game. Heck when I was in Rose with Roq it was probably to roll t$ out of the game. As stated, I am happy to negotiate with @Roquentin at any time but they must have a path for everyone on our side to exit. I have no intention of leaving anyone behind unless they state otherwise. Quote [11:52 PM] Prefontaine: But Keegoz is actually bad. [11:52 PM] Prefontaine: He's my favorite bad leader though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Azaghul Posted December 12, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted December 12, 2019 2 hours ago, Roquentin said: Thing is, I'm not the only one holding these beliefs. Most people who prefer peace just want it because the war is long or they want to make peace time income without looking at the wider numbers. The logs said 3.5 but that was including wars NPO fought in more or less. It would go back to 4.5 maybe that some version of this war has been fought. Until this war, it had been without success and advantages accumulated over time after Paracov definitively fell. Even someone at war with us currently acknowledged the rubicon had been crossed and there is no strategic incentive to peace without a favorable outcome. I'm not sure what the "3.5" vs "4.5" your talking about even is. Any 'advantage' you are eaking out this point is very marginal unless it is to drive players from the game. All the expensive infra has been blown up. You can't force anyone to spend their warchest and it's easy for us to fund ourselves just by raiding. Both sides are limited in what they can rebuild. The larger point that you are missing, and in my experience have always missed in this world and in previous worlds is that this is a game. It's not just about stats or eliminating all potential threats. It's about having fun and having a good community. Competition is fun. The seesaw of different alliances and groups going in and out of power and different coalitions forming is fun. Wars that involve months of both sides mostly just bombing and rebombing rubble aren't fun. If all you're concerned about is "strategic incentives" you're missing all that. Especially since as I said above, the actual in-game advantage you get from extending this war is very marginal. 3 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noctis Anarch Caelum Posted December 12, 2019 Share Posted December 12, 2019 14 minutes ago, Prefontaine said: PSA to anyone taking this thread seriously, Ignore anything Noctis is saying in this thread. He's merely trying to derail and distract from actual conversations. Ignore him, report him. https://forum.politicsandwar.com/index.php?/ignore/ Your contributions have been golden, like every other thread of the same you've made like this; without having any idea why they'll never work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buorhann Posted December 12, 2019 Share Posted December 12, 2019 9 hours ago, Roquentin said: When the last war was ongoing, people raised the question of what would happen after. Would TKR/Guardian/GOB/etc. be more angry at the ex-EMC who had hit them or at Inquisition? -skipped the rest- The last war was Surf's Up, just FYI. 4 Quote Warrior of Dio https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfPCFQfOnLg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noctis Anarch Caelum Posted December 12, 2019 Share Posted December 12, 2019 (edited) Anyways, Roq isn't backing down on wanting terms (at least at this time). Trying to negotiate a surrender on OWF is highly unlikely to work when at least 1 side is very far from white peace in what they'll give. Edit: Although as long as goons don't benefit unjustly with reps, I would be willing to help mediate maybe if KERTOG/Chaos wanted to give me a good idea on the maximum they'd be willing to conceded on terms & see if it can just be talked out with Roq if you guys take a more positive view on the future; where the enemies of the next wars aren't predetermined in the previous ones. Edited December 12, 2019 by Noctis Anarch Caelum Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buorhann Posted December 12, 2019 Share Posted December 12, 2019 55 minutes ago, Prefontaine said: I talked to Roq recently regarding the logs and told him that there's some pretty damning stuff in there. You mean how back in September there's quotes of Roq, Leo, and under (To some extent even TheNG) making statements on disbanding/dissolving our side? At which those same statements are very consistently made up till the most recent dates the logs have? That should answer your OP. They're either holding onto long time grudges or they're paranoid. It's been very clearly stated that the only reason why Chaos/KETOG banded together was due to the massive leak from BK/TCW about having both of our spheres rolled. The Gorge dumped logs even showed that they planned on rolling Chaos out of the game once they rebuilt. This isn't a problem on our end for this war, it's theirs. So your OP should be directed to their leadership core. Syndicate/HS gave NPO a chance. Somebody leaked out a screenshot of my own announcement saying we'd defend any alliance from IQ if they get hit after their disbanding. etc. In short, there's been plenty of actions and statements on our side throughout the year(s) that showed the old vets of EMC/Syndisphere were willing to do something new with their past rivals. Hell, I was trying to promote smaller spheres to help promote a more dynamic political landscape. Instead of the usual 2 sides to politics/war, it'd be multiple sides to politics/war. Quote Warrior of Dio https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfPCFQfOnLg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prefonteen Posted December 12, 2019 Share Posted December 12, 2019 57 minutes ago, Prefontaine said: This right here is sort of the point of this thread. Both sides have a perception of the other, and a perception of what they think the other thinks about them. If you actually sit down and talk to each other honestly, you'll find everything has been blown out of proportion and there is a ground that both sides can stand upon and work this situation out. There has been a lot of stuff thrown around this war and if you can step back and try to look at it without your sides mindset, you can see things a little clearer. I talked to Roq recently regarding the logs and told him that there's some pretty damning stuff in there. There is. However if some of my old coalition leadership logs leaked there'd be some pretty damning stuff in there too. In wars like these, morale comes at a premium and sometimes you have to gas yourselves up to keep grinding it out -- even when winning. I'm sure somewhere along the lines I've said like I want to roll them out of the game, when all I really mean is I just wanna roll them. The point is no one really has clean hands in this mess, arguing about who has dirtier hands isn't going to solve things. Respectful dialog is a must, trying to look at things with less bias is important. If we can do that, small pockets of trust can be built and the there's a chance for actual peace and progress. 18 minutes ago, Azaghul said: I'm not sure what the "3.5" vs "4.5" your talking about even is. Any 'advantage' you are eaking out this point is very marginal unless it is to drive players from the game. All the expensive infra has been blown up. You can't force anyone to spend their warchest and it's easy for us to fund ourselves just by raiding. Both sides are limited in what they can rebuild. The larger point that you are missing, and in my experience have always missed in this world and in previous worlds is that this is a game. It's not just about stats or eliminating all potential threats. It's about having fun and having a good community. Competition is fun. The seesaw of different alliances and groups going in and out of power and different coalitions forming is fun. Wars that involve months of both sides mostly just bombing and rebombing rubble aren't fun. If all you're concerned about is "strategic incentives" you're missing all that. Especially since as I said above, the actual in-game advantage you get from extending this war is very marginal. Pref; A big problem is that with regards to this becoming a long-term grudgefest, it's not entirely up to us. We have lost the war and sued for peace. There is not much more we can do besides waiting for our opposition to actually come to the table and present us with their demands in good faith. The leaks have shown that that has not occurred yet, and until then we will be in status quo. So long as no viable avenue to peace is given by the victor, the war drags on, grudges fester and the game becomes less hospitable to more people. I would love for this to change (god forbid; i'd really like to retire again eventually, and this war is a major roadblock to that), and my DM's have been consistently open. There have been private efforts to reasonably work on peace on my part prior to any public posts, and there have been paralel efforts right up until now. Dialogue has, in my opinion, been unattainable- and that is by design. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prefontaine Posted December 12, 2019 Author Share Posted December 12, 2019 2 minutes ago, Buorhann said: You mean how back in September there's quotes of Roq, Leo, and under (To some extent even TheNG) making statements on disbanding/dissolving our side? At which those same statements are very consistently made up till the most recent dates the logs have? That should answer your OP. They're either holding onto long time grudges or they're paranoid. It's been very clearly stated that the only reason why Chaos/KETOG banded together was due to the massive leak from BK/TCW about having both of our spheres rolled. The Gorge dumped logs even showed that they planned on rolling Chaos out of the game once they rebuilt. This isn't a problem on our end for this war, it's theirs. So your OP should be directed to their leadership core. Syndicate/HS gave NPO a chance. Somebody leaked out a screenshot of my own announcement saying we'd defend any alliance from IQ if they get hit after their disbanding. etc. In short, there's been plenty of actions and statements on our side throughout the year(s) that showed the old vets of EMC/Syndisphere were willing to do something new with their past rivals. Hell, I was trying to promote smaller spheres to help promote a more dynamic political landscape. Instead of the usual 2 sides to politics/war, it'd be multiple sides to politics/war. There comes a point where you have to stop looking backwards. I'm not saying forget, but put it aside for the sake of moving forward. I've also said how those types of logs are also gassed up. You've been in channels like there where you spit on your enemies while surrounded by your allies. It happens. I'm not saying there isn't a problem with what is said, however there comes a point where being fixated on it doesn't help solve the problem at hand. I'm not trying to discredit your feelings about what was said, but to find a solution we need to put those sort of things aside. It's not an easy thing to do, but in my opinion it needs to be done on some level for things to progress. It doesn't matter who has dirtier hands. What matters now is finding an end to this war that isn't deleting nations/alliances. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noctis Anarch Caelum Posted December 12, 2019 Share Posted December 12, 2019 (edited) 14 minutes ago, Prefonteen said: Pref; A big problem is that with regards to this becoming a long-term grudgefest, it's not entirely up to us. We have lost the war and sued for peace. There is not much more we can do besides waiting for our opposition to actually come to the table and present us with their demands in good faith. The leaks have shown that that has not occurred yet, and until then we will be in status quo. So long as no viable avenue to peace is given by the victor, the war drags on, grudges fester and the game becomes less hospitable to more people. I would love for this to change (god forbid; i'd really like to retire again eventually, and this war is a major roadblock to that), and my DM's have been consistently open. There have been private efforts to reasonably work on peace on my part prior to any public posts, and there have been paralel efforts right up until now. Dialogue has, in my opinion, been unattainable- and that is by design. Lost is subjective, since where you might want to throw in the towel; others might consider that just part of 1 of a multi-part war strategy. Syndicate joined later & gave into complete defeatism before many Chaos/KETOG fighting much longer. In a constantly dynamic world nothing stands still forever, using Guerilla Warfare tactics you can wait until another problem occurs for the alliance & then combine your efforts with their new problems. Always new opportunities & defeat is largely a state of mind when there is no clear set criteria on what that entails. Same when victory isn't defined. Keeping as many players Coalition B has pinned down indefinitely is quite the feat to pull of for such a long time.You really think its impossible to break that with patience and circumstances don't change? You'll feel like you're always losing if that is how you decide to view it. You'll feel like you're winning or doing good at least with a different frame of mind; although same circumstances. Edited December 12, 2019 by Noctis Anarch Caelum Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roquentin Posted December 12, 2019 Share Posted December 12, 2019 16 minutes ago, Charles the Tyrant said: Heh, im not actually hurting cashwise or resource wise to the point where I need any help at all. If you know what you are doing, it's pretty easy middle tier ( if 16 is even the middle tier anymore?) and downwards to fight and exist off loot alone and stash some away for a rebuild. It's probably another reason why continuing the war at this stage in an attempt to burn resources is maybe futile since cheap infantry based war is largely self-funding and profitable if done correctly with some luck. But yeah, asides from that, I suppose we generally agree on most other things. That's if we are both being genuine of course ? We're not trying to burn resources, but yeah. I'm sure if it continues then we can figure something out for people in similar situations as you. 10 minutes ago, Cooper_ said: The answer was that by the end of KF, we had a choice to hate everyone or to move on. We chose the latter because grudges are pointless in the meta and it would clearly not be strategically sound to hate the 30 alliances that just rolled us. Ever since we dropped EMC in early 2018, our goal was to make a more interesting meta, and after KF we saw lots of opportunities save the giant treaty spam of stagnation that was IQ. Our goal was to get rid of the hegemony of the game and to continue to add to what we saw as a dynamic future. During the formation of Chaos, the minisphere idea was a key idea that linked our desires with a realistic FA path to achieve it. Yes, our vision for the game required the dismantling of IQ because minispheres and the then IQ hegemony were mutually exclusive. This meant working with people who had just hit us and finding common ground with old enemies. Many of our plans were leaked by Sphinx. If you read them, none point to personal grudges against the constituent alliances of IQ rather just the bloc itself. If another hegemony had arisen that threw our desires for the game asunder, then we would've had the same response. That's not the answer. If you ingratiate yourself with everyone else you had fought to take down a certain a group, you are picking that group. IQ was competitive yes, but it wasn't a hegemony as it couldn't beat everyone else on its own. It would top out and was usually worse off than the other groups. It had a lot of treaties between constituents yeah, but they were redundant. There was never a point where IQ had the type of strength the actual hegemonic powers have had. In essence you wanted to isolate and then when it dind't wwork beat up the people who weren't well-liked. No one else would count as a hegemony by your definition. 10 minutes ago, Cooper_ said: I think your opening line seems a bit contradictory. Attrition is a significant impact. TKR lost a third of its memberbase, its upper tier was essentially gone, and it ended KF with better part of 1000 cities less than it started. It was a hard hit, but we survived and we grew despite it not because some TKR low gov said so. However, this concept has nothing to do with the hit on BK/Cov. Its extreme bad faith to just not mention the logs and myriad of evidence that started this war in the first place. They wanted to hit Chaos and draft you in to hit KETOGG. The validity of that CB is night and day. There is even public evidence that shows that Cov had plans to hit Chaos during rebuild. The only choice that was made was when this war started not if. And its not as if Coalition A is our ideal coalition of alliances. We had just come out of a war with KETOGG, and we were definitely not fans of KT especially. Frankly, we have a lot more in common culturally with your own alliance, Roq, than anyone in KETOGG (which honestly would've been a really interesting result of the aforementioned ideology). After some events that transpired during Surf's Up, many in Chaos and TKR gov were not having it with KT. This isn't a relationship of anything besides what we saw as survival because that's what the BK/Cov threat merited. KETOG and Chaos were no long-term allies, and neither of them coveted hegemony nor could really be considered EMC. Attriton isn't damage done by the war itself. It's due to people leaving because of the war. They made the choice. We didn't make it for them. It would have had zero impact on TKR if they had kept their nations. The assessments Mitsuru and Radoje provided were accurate that it wouldn't really dent TKR much in terms of the fundamentals. I get TKR might be journey before destination but it was more of a justification to execute what they wanted to do. Did the CB mean they were on the defensive and on the backfoot yes? That was the main problem for them. The wheels had been in motion for a long time. It was just a convenient CB. I can sympathize with not wanting to get hit mid-rebuild, but it hasn't been an ethical problem for most of your side. Yeah, I mean it's totally possible we can get along well in terms of just generic chit chat and what not, but that's not what makes things happen. TKR made the choice to approach KT/TGH earlier in the year and strategically dispatched someone who was more on their wavelength culturally to make inroads. That's pragmatic but pragmatism is the motivation rather than ideological commitment to fluidity and whatnot. It doesn't really matter if pasky or you have a problem or you as a low gov member personally, the high gov made its decision a long time ago about wanting to work with KT and co for political benefit. That's fine but expect a response. They coveted hegemony in their own ways. The top damage doers ended up with them mostly. Rather than minispheres, the vision seems to have been one of upper tier niche power blocs with some padding. I mean yeah I also know it's easier to justify just siding with each other without paper so it's not called hegemony. They would use any specter to continue to be unified. 10 minutes ago, Cooper_ said: We thought this was going to be the fight for our lives, and it was quite surprising to us when BK sphere got rolled in just a few days. Personally, I went into this war thinking that I was going to get rolled twice in a row because BK sphere was so massive. Perhaps, y'all were smarter than us and saw correctly that BK would crumple and offer no significant resistance, but we most certainly did not. It was a fight of the survival of our blocs, our alliances and of our ideology. And this is why TKR especially pushed as hard as it did to not expand the war you. We had believed your lack of relation to the initial logs and we knew that NPO's entry would ensure bipolarity, anathema to our ideals. After we saw a victory in sight for the war, our goals were simply to try to break up what we perceived as the hegemony of the game and end the war with three simple, easy terms. A big part of our goals is short, more frequent wars with less animosity, and at the moment we thought it possible even for a global war as such: a rolling, war goals achieved and peace. Well I've heard others felt differently. It was inevitable the BKsphere's inflated nation count would come crashing down because it was mostly micros and people who hadn't fought much before. Given what happened with Egyptian Empire beforehand, the issues with Carthago weren't unforseeable. We had dealt with nation counts being propaganda in the past, so we took the claims to be cynically made. So here's the problem we get into you went in thinking you were going to be eradicated, so it's very much a self-fulfilling prophecy as the way you acted made it seem you were out to eradicate others. Again, you keep missing the point where short wars are only good for the side that gets quick damage in as it will produce a gap if it's repeated oftne enough. 10 minutes ago, Cooper_ said: NPO's entry into the war changed all of this. It wasn't so much that we were losing. Remember that TKR had come out of KF just a few months prior and we were losing Surf's Up. Rather the problem was twofold. First, the ideals that we had were shattered. In the span of a DoW, the game snapped back into bipolarity with the same alliances against each other. What was TKR/KT/Rose (not a before-seen combination) against TcW/BK (similarly as unconventional) became TKR/KT/Rose vs. BK/NPO/Cov (IQ + TcW). It was needed to avoid it being a curbstomp. Tripolarity doesn't work if you unify into something much bigger and it's 2 spheres vs 1. The previous PR lines was that bipolarity was always expected but the journey would be worth entertaining minispheres or whatever. We always had a cautious cynicism about that.. 10 minutes ago, Cooper_ said: Years of work on behalf of some of the Chaos alliances and even some in KETOGG was erased. It seemed at the time that no amount of relations-building, effort or even subjection to harm/risk would be enough to overcome the personal ties that bind us all in Orbis. IQ was too entrenched as a mindset. And for people like Sketchy, this hit a nerve. For something like 3 years, he had been working along with others across Orbis to change the meta out of bipolarity into something else. He made regrettable comments, which thankfully were disavowed months ago publicly by Hodor and coalition leaders. How exactly? What work? Basically, the goal wasn't to reunify long-term but only prevent the curbstomp from continuing so the BK/Cov group would continue to exist as an independent entity so there'd be a sphere still able to compete with the others. 10 minutes ago, Cooper_ said: Second, NPO had broken the trust we had all placed in it to stay true to its breakup of IQ. We took a leap of faith when we believed NPO in its denial of involvement in Rainbow's leaks. We thought that good faith might lead somewhere in the future, or maybe it was the only way that we could keep the nightmare of bipolarity away. This was compounded by a shoddy CB, especially relative to the CB that started this war, against TKR, which is just a rehash of an age-old feud that I know TKR wanted desperately to put in the past in light of a path towards our desired meta. And the loss of trust just continued to compound. NPO broke T$' conditions, then they continually flopped on their reasons for attacking (even shifting to openly admitting that they did so in defenses of BK and the dynamic), to finally planning and conducting hostilities against a treatied ally. It seemed that there was no end to the breaking of precedent, and that this choice of NPO's was completely out of our control. The issue is we never promised not to intervene in such a crisis. Bipolarity is just a product of counter-consolidation in this case. Scenarios where opposition was fractured against the elites had happened in the past and we did not care to repeat the divided opposition's mistakes in the past. We didn't flop. The justification was one for hitting TKR specifically. The last line was always more operative in that we felt that the balance of power would shift too heavily if we didn't intervene. Yes, the BK/Cov side asked us for help and the military decision was one of preventing it from getting to the point of no return. You guys just wanted to read selectively. I had mentioned it repeatedly that we held off using the TKR CB until it was clear BK/Cov's military counts would not hold up. The tS thing is more nuanced than you can explain. tS peaced out and was showered with praise for leaving us out to get rolled. They benefited massively but instead of just counting their blessings they didn't try to make amends. They antagonized us instead and had been waving the red flag to the others. The bulls were going to charge eventually. When they undermined our war effort by signing two alliances that peaced out so they could do so without any ramifications, it was a huge victory for the other side and humiliated us as we had no prior indication. Alliances like those were our main problem with BK's sphere as we had to deal with a bunch of pixel huggers not being willing to do what it took to win. The response from tS when we reacted negatively was "we don't have to tell you anything since you'll leak to BK." and "we had intel you would leak to BK so we acted. I can conjure up reasons to do things too and listen to the voices in my head like you did". If they didn't want to cancel then they would have apologized and it would have been an oversight rather than intentional. 10 minutes ago, Cooper_ said: To make these matters worse, NPO didn't just play dirty during the war, but also in the preparations for peace talks. Possibly, the focus here shifts to the coalition as a whole, but undoubtedly NPO plays an integral role of enforcing these actions. There was an unprecedented ask for a surrender before talks even began combined with a condition of talks only one day a month although fortunately they were only asking for a NAP, surrender and meme terms. It took many months of back and forth in the coalition to come to terms with our defeat with what it meant for the meta and for our alliances. Finally, in November, both T$ and KERCHTOGG both surrendered, our representatives were trolled, ignored and gaslighted. They weren't shown the terms as promised nor were the terms just a NAP, surrender and meme terms. The argument they presented against us was that we had pushed this war thus far because of comments from Sketchy and co that "crossed the Rubicon," and yet months after these comments in late June/early July the offers for simple surrender and peace terms was still on the table. It finally reached a point where we our good faith had run out, and rightly so we concluded that there was no interest in real peace talks. It wasn't really unprecedented. It was expected of various alliances to surrender to end the conflict. All you did was say you'd surrender as part of a final settlemnt. There just weren't any other terms in those caes and ours were mostly joke terms at the time. You stoked antagonism throughout the months of stubborness. You did not actually surrender as the surrender takes place when you actually agree to every single term one by one. It was on the table because we had an investment in keeping the more warshy alliances onside hoping they would improve. You instead jumped on the weakness shown by some to pursue a strategy of attritioning our side of alliances and resources so you could force a white peace. 10 minutes ago, Cooper_ said: Partisan makes his post after days of researching, looking for the required evidence and exposing the truth to the public on how peace talks were going. Our situation was untenable. Damned if we do and damned if we don't. Yet coalition B was slandering us publicly for the lack of progress. The choice was clear. Predictably, the stance of coalition B changed because a lot of their bs had been called out although the worst was yet to come. George and Kastor leaked devastating (or what should be devastating) logs from the upper echelons of coalition B's internals. They're not really devastating because it's literally just our own channel where we talked a lot of shit. It wasn't meant for public consumption and the stuff in there wasn't revelatory. Our stances had been more or less known. 10 minutes ago, Cooper_ said: On the public record, was Leo, Keshav, Roquentin, Under, TheNG stating that their intent with the peace talks was to attrition us to death, to disbandment. Now, I have always tried to see the bright side of things and engage with as much good faith as possible, but for me and many others in our coalition, that was the line. What NPO had decried for a refuted microcosm was being perpetrated on a mass-scale to heinous effect. It was hypocritical and it was unbelievable. That wound will need time to heal, but despite these damaging logs being thrown into the open Coalition B didn't flinch. They gaslighted, they deflected and they even tried to justify it. I mean we had ample justification for being upset with the conduct of your leaders which led to those stances being adopted and since you'd remain unified going forward, we had no reason to rush anything if you didn't want to make all the concessions. There isn't going to be much for us to say when private closed circle conversations get logdumped because someone got tired of not being able to milk his alliance for stuff and wanted to move onto making his own. 10 minutes ago, Cooper_ said: Roq, the golden rule stipulates "do to others what you wish to have done to yourself," and even the vestige of this cardinal value escapes the NPO and the actions it enforces. If you want to find your metaphorical "rubicon," then here it is. For the living humans behind the discord users, nations, forum accounts and everything that makes up our own communities and the Orbis community, I choose that hill to die on every time. As I said, it's not morality operative here. We can't act angelically when you have cutthroat groups who will try to break people if they can. It's just not via a long war as they don't need it so they don't have to worry about attention spans. 10 minutes ago, Cooper_ said: And a note is that I address this post to NPO mostly because I see them as a principal agent in many of these actions and it is in response to your post. It is possible that at least some of this can be contributed to your coalition. The thing is that pure hegemony isn't the point of this game. A lot of the above was about fleshing out how this game can be made better without it. I always find it funny that you were the one who coined EMC, easy-mode coalition. You had a point. This game is supposed to be a challenge in politics and in war. On that point, I'd like to say you usually make a great enemy and promise lots of fireworks and difficulties, and I respect that. To bested in the political theatre or mechanically in war is a part of the game, and the entertainment or the "fun" is overcoming those challenges with one's community to later become the defeater instead of the defeated. The evolution of paracov into IQ is a great example. Its simple choices that aren't always the easy path like BK leaving OO, TKR leaving EMC, or NPO originally joining up with cov that provide the dynamic framework that really lets these sims tick. I admonish you using your own words. Don't let Opus Dei become the new EMC. Different names, but the meaning still carries on. We've not been trying to achieve hegemony. The issue is we've had to show some semblance of military capacity and willingness to act on it so people don't treat us as pushovers. In the past people relied on us being too impotent to stop them from screwing us. Opus Dei is nowhere near EMC's level of dominance. 10 minutes ago, Cooper_ said: For the sake of NPO players and the orbis community, its not essential to milk out every little thing until you are unparalleled but to work in such a way that benefits your community. Evolving this game into a stagnated CN 2.0 isn't the way to achieve that. As I've said before, we're open to ideas on how to fix the game besides minispheres for the sake of a dynamic environment. And yet it's clear that consolidation, bipolarity and the sole desire for hegemony are only conducive for promoting stagnation and facilitating paranoia where none should exist. It's not CN 2.0 as there are factors in your favor. We don't overwhelm you in every regard. It is easy for you to be relatively mechanically competitive. With CN, the needed things weren't there for everyone. If you want something different then there need to be established ground rules rather than just paperless cooperation. 10 minutes ago, Cooper_ said: So @Prefontaine to answer your question after my magnum opus of a post. I think it boils down to three aspects. A difference in ideology of the future of the game. Personal relationships that have developed over time generally as a reflection of ideological alignments, mere exposure effect. Finally, a drastically distinct set of perceptions on the game, the meta and actions that was perceive to be justified or precedented. As a note though, I'm not a coalition leader, but I am intimately involved with TKR, the Chaos alliances and much of Coalition A in an FA setting. idk since you seem to be projecting a view where we desire hegemony as a default. We want to do well yeah but when the culture of the game is one where it's okay to screw us because we're unpopular unless we can beat people up all the time since everyone else has gotten away with screwing us/Cov/BK/etc., we have to reach a certain high ground. You seem pretty naive and you're not actually leading TKR so not sure whether you can say you represent it truly. 9 minutes ago, Buorhann said: You mean how back in September there's quotes of Roq, Leo, and under (To some extent even TheNG) making statements on disbanding/dissolving our side? At which those same statements are very consistently made up till the most recent dates the logs have? That should answer your OP. They're either holding onto long time grudges or they're paranoid. It's been very clearly stated that the only reason why Chaos/KETOG banded together was due to the massive leak from BK/TCW about having both of our spheres rolled. The Gorge dumped logs even showed that they planned on rolling Chaos out of the game once they rebuilt. This isn't a problem on our end for this war, it's theirs. So your OP should be directed to their leadership core. Syndicate/HS gave NPO a chance. Somebody leaked out a screenshot of my own announcement saying we'd defend any alliance from IQ if they get hit after their disbanding. etc. In short, there's been plenty of actions and statements on our side throughout the year(s) that showed the old vets of EMC/Syndisphere were willing to do something new with their past rivals. Hell, I was trying to promote smaller spheres to help promote a more dynamic political landscape. Instead of the usual 2 sides to politics/war, it'd be multiple sides to politics/war. By then it was known you'd stick together and try to get outside support. It wasn't the gorge logs that showed it. It was Alexio's logs and your side embraced him. Syndicate gave us a chance so BK could get rolled easily from what I can surmise at this point. With HS, it was initially through tS, but they seemed to be keen on pragmatic thinking rather than narrow-mindedness like tS. You usually said there'd always be two sides, though. 43 minutes ago, Keegoz said: I made no announcement about my departure, I didn't even have internet access when it was announced I had left. I hit VM for my planned trip away and was told the night I was leaving to get my affairs in order because our departure was going to happen before the war concluded. Okay then but KT did frame it that way. 43 minutes ago, Keegoz said: Just because I wasn't open to you about it doesn't mean I wasn't open to others about it. You can ask abbas if you like because he was the one I talked to the most about it at the time (I was looking for somewhere that I could genuinely help out and TKR on the whole seemed fine but KT wasn't). So we're going back in time on this and I mean if you didn't tell me that's fine. 43 minutes ago, Keegoz said: Show me the log that details that we intended to stick with Chaos post-war. At best we thought we could convince them to join us in a war against someone else but were doubtful of it happening once we hit them. What's more is that we agreed that if we ever teamed up with Chaos, it would be a one time thing because we knew people like you would throw accusations that we were allied in some way. Working with Chaos wasn't even an isolated idea, I approached NPO and t$ as well but was promptly turned down. They told outside questioners that a few months back. People inquired about their intentions. You might be mixing the timelines now. 43 minutes ago, Keegoz said: If you want to negotiate peace I am all ears, you didn't say a word last time but I'll gladly negotiate with you. That's of course if you have terms to present. Considering the delay in any peace actually occuring is because t$ and their allies still have no gotten any terms, there isn't a lot to talk about. That's basically where we're at. We left negotiating with wanting 2 things to proceed. The first was to know our terms and the other was for t$ to at least get terms. They've delayed the t$ terms to what seems to be indefinately. I agree, I've almost certainly said in the heat of the moment that I want to roll X alliance out of the game. Heck when I was in Rose with Roq it was probably to roll t$ out of the game. As stated, I am happy to negotiate with @Roquentin at any time but they must have a path for everyone on our side to exit. I have no intention of leaving anyone behind unless they state otherwise. tS will eventually get terms but they will be dealt with separately. It's not to disband them or anything. They have a different starting point so are less affected by the war. They also are more energized and have an axe to grind as rather than Partisan cleaning up the mess by admitting tS screwed up in its dealings with NPO and Coalition B, he's chosen to act as if he was wronged when his alliance pushed this scenario into being. I don't think we ever thought we could roll tS out of the game. The idea was more to see if we could pull off winning knowing it'd most likely cause them to split because it would no longer be a guaranteed success. Winning was elusive for us at the time and it's taken this long to win against this combination of alliances, which is what mean with 4.5 years. It's not about a grudge but rather it was impossible to beat them in any prior version of this war. The fact that we keep fighting versions of the same war with some skips in between is a problem yeah but this was the only time our side got this far. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prefonteen Posted December 12, 2019 Share Posted December 12, 2019 6 minutes ago, Roquentin said: tS will eventually get terms but they will be dealt with separately. It's not to disband them or anything. They have a different starting point so are less affected by the war. They also are more energized and have an axe to grind as rather than Partisan cleaning up the mess by admitting tS screwed up in its dealings with NPO and Coalition B, he's chosen to act as if he was wronged when his alliance pushed this scenario into being. I don't think we ever thought we could roll tS out of the game. The idea was more to see if we could pull off winning knowing it'd most likely cause them to split because it would no longer be a guaranteed success. Winning was elusive for us at the time and it's taken this long to win against this combination of alliances, which is what mean with 4.5 years. It's not about a grudge but rather it was impossible to beat them in any prior version of this war. The fact that we keep fighting versions of the same war with some skips in between is a problem yeah but this was the only time our side got this far. Roq- the leaked logs make clear that you or at least your coalition intended to draw tS in with the specific intention of dealing permanent damage. This includes direct allusions to forcing departures and/or deletions. I came into the position much more conciliatory on how we got to this situation than I am now, because a lot of evidence has come to light which has forced me to alter my view on the events leading up to this. I also firmly believe you have lost any moral high ground you might've claimed with your handling of this peace process. I'm not sure why you are surprised at t$ being less than thrilled over the information which has come out about its ally at the time. Diplomacy tends to work far better at preventing grudges than scorched earth. I have in the past proven more than willing to set grudges and grievances aside over time (Hell, I allied you and I also allied @James II despite our Alpha war throwdown for example). By making the grievances over the peace process about me personally rather than recognizing them as the grievances of a coalition which genuinely wants peace but feels as if that avenue is not really being given, you are treating the symptom (me being vocal) rather than the cause. That's either a mistake, or intentional. Seperate talks were on the table for a long time: We only asked they actually kick off. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keegoz Posted December 12, 2019 Share Posted December 12, 2019 48 minutes ago, Roquentin said: I don't think we ever thought we could roll tS out of the game. The idea was more to see if we could pull off winning knowing it'd most likely cause them to split because it would no longer be a guaranteed success. Winning was elusive for us at the time and it's taken this long to win against this combination of alliances, which is what mean with 4.5 years. It's not about a grudge but rather it was impossible to beat them in any prior version of this war. The fact that we keep fighting versions of the same war with some skips in between is a problem yeah but this was the only time our side got this far. It was more going on what Pre was saying, that at times people say they want to roll someone out of the game even though they probably wouldn't. You're right though that that was our aim, breaking the mentality that t$ could never lose and having the 'free-riders' break off. I disliked t$/EMC so much at the time that I even started Silent despite splitting from you. Quote [11:52 PM] Prefontaine: But Keegoz is actually bad. [11:52 PM] Prefontaine: He's my favorite bad leader though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edward I Posted December 12, 2019 Share Posted December 12, 2019 (edited) 3 hours ago, Cooper_ said: The answer was that by the end of KF, we had a choice to hate everyone or to move on. We chose the latter because grudges are pointless in the meta and it would clearly not be strategically sound to hate the 30 alliances that just rolled us. Ever since we dropped EMC in early 2018, our goal was to make a more interesting meta, and after KF we saw lots of opportunities save the giant treaty spam of stagnation that was IQ. We wanted to get rid of the hegemony of the game and to continue to add to what we saw as a dynamic future. During the formation of Chaos, the minisphere idea was a key idea that linked our desires with a realistic FA path to achieve it. Yes, our vision for the game required the dismantling of IQ because minispheres and the then IQ hegemony were mutually exclusive. This meant working with people who had just hit us and finding common ground with old enemies. Many of our plans were leaked by Sphinx. If you read them, none point to personal grudges against the constituent alliances of IQ rather just the bloc itself. If another hegemony had arisen that threw our desires for the game asunder, then we would've had the same response. I think your opening line seems a bit contradictory. Attrition is a significant impact. TKR lost a third of its memberbase, its upper tier was essentially gone, and it ended KF with better part of 1000 cities less than it started. The point of Knightfall for us was always to cut the upper tier of EMC down to size. Roq's point is that it was at best a qualified, temporary success that needed to be followed up on to be meaningful in the long run. The persistent upper tier strength of the alliances from TKR's Knightfall coalition shows how transient the effect was. Quote It was a hard hit, but we survived and we grew despite it not because some TKR low gov said so. However, this concept has nothing to do with the hit on BK/Cov. Its extreme bad faith to just not mention the logs and myriad of evidence that started this war in the first place. They wanted to hit Chaos and draft you in to hit KETOGG. The validity of that CB is night and day. There is even public evidence that shows that Cov had plans to hit Chaos during rebuild. The only choice that was made was when this war started not if. And its not as if Coalition A is our ideal coalition of alliances. We had just come out of a war with KETOGG, and we were definitely not fans of KT especially. No one ever said you didn't have a good reason to hit BK, Cov and co., but the stated reason for hitting them was irrelevant to our worries about that power center being badly defeated and potentially crippled. Quote Frankly, we have a lot more in common culturally with your own alliance, Roq, than anyone in KETOGG (which honestly would've been a really interesting result of the aforementioned ideology). After some events that transpired during Surf's Up, many in Chaos and TKR gov were not having it with KT. This isn't a relationship of anything besides what we saw as survival because that's what the BK/Cov threat merited. KETOG and Chaos were no long-term allies, and neither of them coveted hegemony nor could really be considered EMC. We view this war the same way, and it's something that's regularly dismissed by your coalition. We weren't sure BK would be a long-term ally for us either, until your coalition decided to turn this into an all-encompassing, existential struggle in which we were at the top of their list of enemies. I'm not trying to tally grievances, just to point out the symmetry. Quote We thought this was going to be the fight for our lives, and it was quite surprising to us when BK sphere got rolled in just a few days. Personally, I went into this war thinking that I was going to get rolled twice in a row because BK sphere was so massive. Perhaps, y'all were smarter than us and saw correctly that BK would crumple and offer no significant resistance, but we most certainly did not. It was a fight of the survival of our blocs, our alliances and of our ideology. And this is why TKR especially pushed as hard as it did to not expand the war you. We had believed your lack of relation to the initial logs and we knew that NPO's entry would ensure bipolarity, anathema to our ideals. After we saw a victory in sight for the war, our goals were simply to try to break up what we perceived as the hegemony of the game and end the war with three simple, easy terms. A big part of our goals is short, more frequent wars with less animosity, and at the moment we thought it possible even for a global war as such: a rolling, war goals achieved and peace. NPO's entry into the war changed all of this. It wasn't so much that we were losing. Remember that TKR had come out of KF just a few months prior and we were losing Surf's Up. Rather the problem was twofold. First, the ideals that we had were shattered. In the span of a DoW, the game snapped back into bipolarity with the same alliances against each other. What was TKR/KT/Rose (not a before-seen combination) against TcW/BK (similarly as unconventional) became TKR/KT/Rose vs. BK/NPO/Cov (IQ + TcW). Years of work on behalf of some of the Chaos alliances and even some in KETOGG was erased. It seemed at the time that no amount of relations-building, effort or even subjection to harm/risk would be enough to overcome the personal ties that bind us all in Orbis. IQ was too entrenched as a mindset. And for people like Sketchy, this hit a nerve. For something like 3 years, he had been working along with others across Orbis to change the meta out of bipolarity into something else. He made regrettable comments, which thankfully were disavowed months ago publicly by Hodor and coalition leaders. It's not our fault or our problem that Sketchy and others tried and failed to make minispheres work, especially since we explained repeatedly that something along these lines would happen sooner or later. The lesson here is that if a major center of power - NPO, in this case - repeatedly voices criticisms and misgivings about a global FA project, maybe take them into account. At best you'd have gotten a better, more durable version of minispheres, and at worst you'd have known this was doomed to fail from the start. Quote Second, NPO had broken the trust we had all placed in it to stay true to its breakup of IQ. We didn't make promises to TKR to "stay true" to anything. Our obligations were always to our own interests and to our allies. The whole vision you've been outlining was always yours, not ours. To the extent that we acted in accordance with it, we did so for our own reasons and don't owe anything to Orbis at large. Furthermore, the initial reactions of multiple future Coalition A government members in April, when IQ dissolved and N$O was formed, were that we hadn't gone far enough or that we were outright lying about our FA arrangements. "Trust" is a strong word for the attitude conveyed to us, an attitude we kept in mind going forward. Quote We took a leap of faith when we believed NPO in its denial of involvement in Rainbow's leaks. We thought that good faith might lead somewhere in the future, or maybe it was the only way that we could keep the nightmare of bipolarity away. This was compounded by a shoddy CB, especially relative to the CB that started this war, against TKR, which is just a rehash of an age-old feud that I know TKR wanted desperately to put in the past in light of a path towards our desired meta. And the loss of trust just continued to compound. NPO broke T$' conditions, then they continually flopped on their reasons for attacking (even shifting to openly admitting that they did so in defenses of BK and the dynamic), to finally planning and conducting hostilities against a treatied ally. It seemed that there was no end to the breaking of precedent, and that this choice of NPO's was completely out of our control. We had several, overlapping, compatible reasons for going to war. Citing different reasons at different times was never "flopping," but referencing the parts of our thinking that were relevant to whatever the topic at hand was. In simplest terms, our reasoning was that, together, the alignment between Chaos and KETOG and BK-Covenant's rapidly deteriorating position posed a serious, long-term risk to NPO and N$O. Some of this was self-evident (the demolition of a power sphere made wars between the remaining power spheres easier and less risky); some of it was speculative (we guessed that Chaos-KETOG relations would be friendly enough after the war to make future alignment a plausible if not likely); and some was evidence-based (we received what we considered to be, under the circumstances, credible information indicating that TKR and Chaos would capitalize on the developing war situation to hit NPO and/or N$O). This is on top of the months of rumors, leaks, and statements that indicated there was a significant amount of lingering hostility towards us, either dating back to our time in the Inquisition or to what many saw as its incomplete, ineffectual breakup. The war didn't happen in a vacuum, and things that might not have warranted action in isolation were troubling in combination. It's possible, although not probable, that our inferences and assumptions didn't reflect reality. But under the circumstances, they made sense. If you or anyone else doesn't want a repeat of this in some potential second attempt at minispheres, take care not to produce a similar set of circumstances. Quote The argument they presented against us was that we had pushed this war thus far because of comments from Sketchy and co that "crossed the Rubicon," and yet months after these comments in late June/early July the offers for simple surrender and peace terms was still on the table. It finally reached a point where we our good faith had run out, and rightly so we concluded that there was no interest in real peace talks. We've brought up Sketchy's post multiple times because it's indicative of a larger attitude among the coalition. It says something about Sketchy and TGH that he posted it in the first place and that it took them so long to push back on it, but even in the "fit of rage" he claims to have been in, it didn't make sense in isolation. There were multiple posts from other people, including Coalition A government officials, that got at the same idea in less explicit terms, and the prevailing attitude towards the war has been, as you said here, that of existential struggle. The immediate aftermath of NPO's entry precluded any possibility of an easy peace, regardless of who won. Quote The thing is that pure hegemony isn't the point of this game. A lot of the above was about fleshing out how this game can be made better without it. I always find it funny that you were the one who coined EMC, easy-mode coalition. You had a point. This game is supposed to be a challenge in politics and in war. On that point, I'd like to say you usually make a great enemy and promise lots of fireworks and difficulties, and I respect that. In context, his point was that the strategy and tactics of EMC fostered a culture which enabled behavior that was just this side of war-dodging to save infra. It wasn't a commentary on the alliances in EMC so much as the players. Drawing a parallel between NPO and EMC doesn't quite fit because, regardless of what you think of our FA, our members have never had any illusions about what their infrastructure is for. Quote To bested in the political theatre or mechanically in war is a part of the game, and the entertainment or the "fun" is overcoming those challenges with one's community to later become the defeater instead of the defeated. The evolution of paracov into IQ is a great example. Its simple choices that aren't always the easy path like BK leaving OO, TKR leaving EMC, or NPO originally joining up with cov that provide the dynamic framework that really lets these sims tick. I admonish you using your own words. Don't let Opus Dei become the new EMC. Different names, but the meaning still carries on. The entertainment and fun is what you make it, nothing else. It should be obvious by now that there isn't a universal answer to that question. Quote For the sake of NPO players and the orbis community, its not essential to milk out every little thing until you are unparalleled but to work in such a way that benefits your community. Evolving this game into a stagnated CN 2.0 isn't the way to achieve that. As I've said before, we're open to ideas on how to fix the game besides minispheres for the sake of a dynamic environment. And yet it's clear that consolidation, bipolarity and the sole desire for hegemony are only conducive for promoting stagnation and facilitating paranoia where none should exist. Who says that's what we're doing? NPO has never had enough power to be "unparalleled," either on its own or as part of a group. Even if we achieve the latter when this is over, it's not like we've announced what we'd do if that happened. And as far as our in-character policy is concerned, our community is our membership, friends and allies. Edited December 12, 2019 by Edward I Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buorhann Posted December 12, 2019 Share Posted December 12, 2019 (edited) 3 hours ago, Prefontaine said: There comes a point where you have to stop looking backwards. I'm not saying forget, but put it aside for the sake of moving forward. Ok, sure, you're right. I've attempted this, several times. Even going so far to give N$O the benefit of the doubt with the major leak that sparked this war. As you can see in those logs, and what Shifty shared, this was their plan. They (NPO) lied to us. You're preaching to the wrong person in regards to this sort of statement. >gassed up logs Never, ever, in any upper leadership coalition chat I've been in has screamed about disbanding or dissolving AAs/Spheres. We've discussed people leaving AAs as a means of seeing how the war is progressing, sure, but it was never a goal. As a matter of fact, some of the wars ended with easier compromises to make up for people leaving AAs. Think the only wars that got out of hand was Trail of Tiers and Papers, Please, but that's my opinion. Sure, there's plenty of shit talking, but there's never any talk about killing off a AA. That was never the goal. To humble them? Sure. To disband them? No. And that log dump showed plenty of that sort of talk on their side, even as a goal (TKR, TGH, and KT were cited the most). Edited December 12, 2019 by Buorhann 3 Quote Warrior of Dio https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfPCFQfOnLg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buorhann Posted December 12, 2019 Share Posted December 12, 2019 (edited) 2 hours ago, Edward I said: It's not our fault or our problem that Sketchy and others tried and failed to make minispheres work, especially since we explained repeatedly that something along these lines would happen sooner or later. The lesson here is that if a major center of power - NPO, in this case - repeatedly voices criticisms and misgivings about a global FA project, maybe take them into account. At best you'd have gotten a better, more durable version of minispheres, and at worst you'd have known this was doomed to fail from the start. Actually, that is your fault. Maybe not your problem, since you didn't care for it, but it was definitely your fault. Multiple times Keshav and Roq has stated something along the lines of... balancing the war. That was blown out the window if you simply go through and read their statements dating back to September. How many times did your NPO leads change their reasoning for joining the war? Why did Horsemen and others (Who held no ties to any side) join in the war again? Why would NPO, who at the beginning adamantly stated they had no part of the plot to roll our spheres, join the side that tried to incriminate them into their plot? Do you see where I'm getting at here? I could go on and on about the inconsistencies. The problem is that you have people who don't want to try to make the game "different". You have players (Frawley being a main advocate of it) to keep the game in stagnation with this 2 sided rivalry. In other words, you're boring. Edited December 12, 2019 by Buorhann Quote Warrior of Dio https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfPCFQfOnLg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Asierith Posted December 12, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted December 12, 2019 4 hours ago, Roquentin said: When they undermined our war effort by signing two alliances that peaced out so they could do so without any ramifications, it was a huge victory for the other side and humiliated us as we had no prior indication. Alliances like those were our main problem with BK's sphere as we had to deal with a bunch of pixel huggers not being willing to do what it took to win. The lack of prior indication is perhaps best justified by the "ramifications" you mention here. As made evident by the actions of Coalition B both before and after we left the war, it was clear that any attempt to give prior notice of our exit would have resulted in retaliation. Considering being held hostage is hardly the most enjoyable thing, our delayed notice was fairly reasonable. With respect to us signing t$, it was actually just us pushing forward an FA move that we had been working towards for a while. The behavior of Coalition B and their attitudes towards us, meant that we had no interest in sticking around the powers that be for any longer. As for the continued portrayal of us as insolent pixel-huggers, I can only say that the primary reason for our exit was cumulative displeasure with our "friends" in the Coalition. After so many hours of being complained at and talked down to, despite laying $40 billion and 20 members on the great bonfire of destruction, in the first global for about 75% of our members - a war that began because of mistakes and plotting that we were not involved in, the actions and behaviour of the Coalition were such that we felt they simply weren't worth any further involvement. 1 13 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Sval Posted December 12, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted December 12, 2019 4 hours ago, Roquentin said: it was a huge victory for the other side and humiliated us as we had no prior indication You humiliate yourself more than we ever could. I told Polaris we were pursuing peace. My people sacrificed more for Coalition B than any of you deserved. 3 7 Quote <~Sval[OWR]> I am your father.<+Curufinwe> Can confirm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James II Posted December 12, 2019 Share Posted December 12, 2019 In regards to deletions in disbandment discussions within IQ vs other groups is, Roq, TheNG, Under, and a number of other coalition leaders, discussed deletions and disbandment as a pre-requisite for peace as opposed to people saying "I hope they delete." I don't think in any of the previous wars it was discussed as a pre-requisite to begin a peace process. 4 Quote "Most successful new AA" - Samuel Bates Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Epi Posted December 12, 2019 Share Posted December 12, 2019 (edited) 1 Edited February 18, 2021 by Epi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edward I Posted December 12, 2019 Share Posted December 12, 2019 (edited) 4 hours ago, Buorhann said: Actually, that is your fault. Maybe not your problem, since you didn't care for it, but it was definitely your fault. Multiple times Keshav and Roq has stated something along the lines of... balancing the war. That was blown out the window if you simply go through and read their statements dating back to September. Actually, it's not our fault. We explained, publicly and privately, that minispheres was a deeply flawed concept. It's not our fault you all didn't listen. We attempted to insert one of the biggest missing elements in minispheres - a force aligned against collusion - ourselves, in the form of some early shared goals for N$O. It is partly our fault that those designs devolved into disagreement and inaction, but it isn't our fault that no one outside of N$O appears to have even tried to do the same. Quote How many times did your NPO leads change their reasoning for joining the war? Why did Horsemen and others (Who held no ties to any side) join in the war again? Why would NPO, who at the beginning adamantly stated they had no part of the plot to roll our spheres, join the side that tried to incriminate them into their plot? Do you see where I'm getting at here? I could go on and on about the inconsistencies. We had several, overlapping reasons for war. They didn't change, as Roquentin and I explained above. Horsemen had a treaty with NPO at the time and either (I really do forget which) asked to come along or was invited by N$O. We said we had no plot to go to war with your spheres because we didn't. By the time we entered, our changing understanding of the evolving circumstances dictated we develop one, so we did. Those have never been contradictory, and the implicit argument that we must formulate our plans based on the calendar of others' wars is ridiculous. Quote The problem is that you have people who don't want to try to make the game "different". You have players (Frawley being a main advocate of it) to keep the game in stagnation with this 2 sided rivalry. In other words, you're boring. Why is that a problem? "Different" isn't better or worse; it's just different. Since Frawley and I are fairly like-minded on this, I feel comfortable explaining on his (our) behalf. We don't place inherent, positive value on bipolarity. We don't care either way. What we do care about is using wars to prosecute IC goals or settle IC scores. Depending on the underlying goals and rivalries, I'd be fine fighting a different war every six months or fighting the same war six times in a row. And we'd be fine with a different game if it was compatible with that. Awhile back, I wrote a proposal for some new game mechanics that I thought might be the start of facilitating multipolarity. Some of them were my ideas; some came from a voice chat I had with @Frawley, @Epi and @Abbas Mehdi. If you think we're boring, that's fine. It's incumbent on you, not us, to make your own fun. Edited December 12, 2019 by Edward I Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prefonteen Posted December 12, 2019 Share Posted December 12, 2019 8 hours ago, Roquentin said: How exactly? What work? Basically, the goal wasn't to reunify long-term but only prevent the curbstomp from continuing so the BK/Cov group would continue to exist as an independent entity so there'd be a sphere still able to compete with the others. If that was the goal then you have failed in achieving it, because the end-result seems all the same. 8 hours ago, Roquentin said: The issue is we never promised not to intervene in such a crisis. Bipolarity is just a product of counter-consolidation in this case. Scenarios where opposition was fractured against the elites had happened in the past and we did not care to repeat the divided opposition's mistakes in the past. We didn't flop. The justification was one for hitting TKR specifically. The last line was always more operative in that we felt that the balance of power would shift too heavily if we didn't intervene. Yes, the BK/Cov side asked us for help and the military decision was one of preventing it from getting to the point of no return. You guys just wanted to read selectively. I had mentioned it repeatedly that we held off using the TKR CB until it was clear BK/Cov's military counts would not hold up. The tS thing is more nuanced than you can explain. tS peaced out and was showered with praise for leaving us out to get rolled. They benefited massively but instead of just counting their blessings they didn't try to make amends. They antagonized us instead and had been waving the red flag to the others. The bulls were going to charge eventually. When they undermined our war effort by signing two alliances that peaced out so they could do so without any ramifications, it was a huge victory for the other side and humiliated us as we had no prior indication. Alliances like those were our main problem with BK's sphere as we had to deal with a bunch of pixel huggers not being willing to do what it took to win. I had hoped we could've refrained from going into the "no u" stuff in this thread. My first point was an attempt at highlighting contributing factors without directly pointing the finger. Seems that's not working.. Ofcourse tS was "showered with praise" by ketog/chaos. Us peacing out was a morale boost for them. It was less about "liking" us and more about being happy that an event unfolded which impacted them beneficially. No "amends" were made because in our view, even if you disagree, you fricked us over right then and there. t$ pulling out is viewed as justified by t$ and by virtue of that, apologies or rectifications would not make sense to us. You could have cancelled on us if you felt wronged by what you describe as t$' "antagonism", but you didn't. This matter of the likes of OWR/CTO is not as black-and-white as you portray it to be. You undermined your own coalition by failing to take your own coalition mates seriously. If after over 4 months of warfare, these alliances have had enough of what has essentially become a vindictive crusade, then I find forcing them to stay in line under threat of retribution in the first place to be reprehensible. Their choice to leave the war is theirs to make, and t$ is not responsible for your inability to motivate them. Going one step further, if your ally signing a treaty with parties who have fought for you for months and whom you don't really need (besides for morale) translates to "undermining your coalition and antagonizing you" then that speaks volumes about your disposition toward us in the first place. If you felt this way, a cancellation would have suited far better than plotting a punitive war against us while you were still allied to us. 8 hours ago, Roquentin said: It wasn't really unprecedented. It was expected of various alliances to surrender to end the conflict. All you did was say you'd surrender as part of a final settlemnt. There just weren't any other terms in those caes and ours were mostly joke terms at the time. You stoked antagonism throughout the months of stubborness. You did not actually surrender as the surrender takes place when you actually agree to every single term one by one. Your coalition representatives demanded an agreement that a surrender was given as a prerequisite to starting peace talks. We complied, word for word, with the demand. 8 hours ago, Roquentin said: It was on the table because we had an investment in keeping the more warshy alliances onside hoping they would improve. You instead jumped on the weakness shown by some to pursue a strategy of attritioning our side of alliances and resources so you could force a white peace. They're not really devastating because it's literally just our own channel where we talked a lot of shit. It wasn't meant for public consumption and the stuff in there wasn't revelatory. Our stances had been more or less known. It has been revelatory to many because the sentiments and policies conveyed in the leaks directly contradicted both your public statements to third parties and your official statements to surrendering alliances. 8 hours ago, Roquentin said: Syndicate gave us a chance so BK could get rolled easily from what I can surmise at this point. With HS, it was initially through tS, but they seemed to be keen on pragmatic thinking rather than narrow-mindedness like tS. That's bullshit spin and i'm calling you out on this. You dealt with 2 persons in conceiving the N$O relationship: Myself pre-knightfall and up until midwar. Hilmes from there and onwards. - My personal stance is long documented. I never subscribed to minispheres but simultaneously viewed the EMC-IQ rivalry as an increasingly stagnating element to the game. My motivations for working with you and prefontaine at the time to organize both knightfall and the subsequent N$O are well documented: To break apart both EMC and IQ. This is supported by my willingness to alienate half my old friends and allies (the "elite" you constantly rile about and which I was a part of) and start Knightfall. - By your own admissions, Hilmes was far more receptive to supporting BK than I was. So either you are saying I helped orchestrated Knightfall so I could roll BK (????), or you're walking back on your own assessment of Hilmes. What exactly are you trying to say here? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.