Jump to content

Unacceptable Behavior


Cooper_
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Roquentin said:

How would we have rolled you anyway? We weren't rolling F1. If you were going to set us up for a reversal anyway,  then yeah maybe.

We're not forcing you into anything. You wanted to escalate it to hit us. You had multiple days to defuse the situation and you chose to hit instead.  The most we wanted was you to stick.

I will ask the question again as you didn't answer it last time.

Why should The Commonwealth have had to de-escalate something that your side deliberately escalated.

You hadn't listened to our alliance for the last few months, as you would have known we wanted out, not into a new war. Why would you start listening to us then?

While we were saying stuff to you, that you would have definitely ignored, you would have been continuing to grind our allies into dust. Unlike OD, who are more than happy to break NAPs that they've agreed, tCW, rightly or wrongly, actually stands by its treaties, so we had to go to our allies aid, especially after the attack by BK, against tCW Bloc, caused our treaty with them to be dissolved.

If you have a problem with what tCW was forced to do, you need to speak to BK, not to us.

---

You've said a number of times in this thread that you have no reason to end the war. Perhaps that is true. If that is true, then that shows that you have no intention of ending the war (at least not yet), so it is not Coalition A and/or The Commonwealth and/or tCW Bloc and/or Farksphere prolonging the war, but that it is OD prolonging the war.

While many would not be happy with it, you would get a hell of a lot more respect out of people on the other side of your conflicts if you were just truthful. If you truly are not trying to have an indefinite war, then perhaps you need to look at yourselves and think about what you're doing.

I just ask you to think about who you will fight when everyone else has left the game and it's only OD left.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest PhantomThiefB
3 minutes ago, LukeTP said:

You've said a number of times in this thread that you have no reason to end the war. Perhaps that is true. If that is true, then that shows that you have no intention of ending the war (at least not yet), so it is not Coalition A and/or The Commonwealth and/or tCW Bloc and/or Farksphere prolonging the war, but that it is OD prolonging the war.

While many would not be happy with it, you would get a hell of a lot more respect out of people on the other side of your conflicts if you were just truthful. If you truly are not trying to have an indefinite war, then perhaps you need to look at yourselves and think about what you're doing.

I just ask you to think about who you will fight when everyone else has left the game and it's only OD left.

The peace talks could have actually progressed the day after Coalition A posted their admission of defeat. Their leadership is just too much of a bunch of pixel huggers to agree to terms. Yes you read that right.

Just for context if not wanting to war and keep your precious infra and resources by staying at peace, stubbornly protecting your collected pixels(banks) at the cost of your membership is pixel hugging too, plain and simple. Like please "you asked a ridiculous sum of 50B" yes that's how negotiating and bartering works, you aim high and end up meeting in the middle (or lower depending on your level of speechcraft) it's not rocket science.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, LukeTP said:

I will ask the question again as you didn't answer it last time.

Why should The Commonwealth have had to de-escalate something that your side deliberately escalated.

You hadn't listened to our alliance for the last few months, as you would have known we wanted out, not into a new war. Why would you start listening to us then?

While we were saying stuff to you, that you would have definitely ignored, you would have been continuing to grind our allies into dust. Unlike OD, who are more than happy to break NAPs that they've agreed, tCW, rightly or wrongly, actually stands by its treaties, so we had to go to our allies aid, especially after the attack by BK, against tCW Bloc, caused our treaty with them to be dissolved.

If you have a problem with what tCW was forced to do, you need to speak to BK, not to us.

---

You've said a number of times in this thread that you have no reason to end the war. Perhaps that is true. If that is true, then that shows that you have no intention of ending the war (at least not yet), so it is not Coalition A and/or The Commonwealth and/or tCW Bloc and/or Farksphere prolonging the war, but that it is OD prolonging the war.

While many would not be happy with it, you would get a hell of a lot more respect out of people on the other side of your conflicts if you were just truthful. If you truly are not trying to have an indefinite war, then perhaps you need to look at yourselves and think about what you're doing.

I just ask you to think about who you will fight when everyone else has left the game and it's only OD left.

You knew what was discussed in your own bloc's server. Their plans to escalate were known. 

This whole thing where we were obsessed with grinding your allies into dust is just your projection. They were pretty aggressive to begin with and triggered a treaty.

It's not. Entering prolongs it because it gives the other side leverage and they look for any sliver of hope to go back to fighting on everything. They could have made progress at this point.  We don't have a reason to end it without getting the stuff in the terms. We've been willing to let individual alliances leave that don't have a stake in it.

I don't really see this as chasing anyone out. I've had to repeat it time and time again that most of these alliances will be in decent condition. The prospect of anyone actually quitting is limited to people who were just a few rounds away anyway. The only alliance that died was CoS and they were having issues in Surf's Up. It wasn't us that did it and we're not behind SK or Empyrea's activity issues either. Yes, Leo said that attrition would be good to limit tS' power projection but those were low hanging fruit who would have left in any war with intensity. At the end of the day, it's still the people who are hardcore who are sticking around anyway and are pretty well-equipped to handle it. Like if it was really a situation where we felt these alliances were in serious danger of collapse, then we'd be a lot different in handling this. What we don't like is them deploying the logdumps as a way to somehow shame us into acquiescing when we're on the hook for the statements either way regardless of how literal they were.  "let us kill you for this." That doesn't really sound too smart when in multiple instances even your own leader acknowledged KERTCHOGG's stance was that we were dead men walking well before those logs were dumped.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, SleepingNinja said:

The peace talks could have actually progressed the day after Coalition A posted their admission of defeat. Their leadership is just too much of a bunch of pixel huggers to agree to terms. Yes you read that right.

Just for context if not wanting to war and keep your precious infra and resources by staying at peace, stubbornly protecting your collected pixels(banks) at the cost of your membership is pixel hugging too, plain and simple. Like please "you asked a ridiculous sum of 50B" yes that's how negotiating and bartering works, you aim high and end up meeting in the middle (or lower depending on your level of speechcraft) it's not rocket science.

Hi! You seem to have posted the oft repeated myth that Coalition A is responsible for breakdown of peace talks. We here at the Council to Restore Pure Decadence to Orbis feel it is our duty to correct the record when and where these inaccuracies occur.

 

On 12/6/2019 at 2:54 PM, ArcKnox said:

Part the first: Trolling CA reps and stalling peace negotiations

underlordgc11/3/2019, 7:55:58 AM
Anyways, I can give a link to kertogibdvsujs to join the peace server

underlordgc11/3/2019, 7:56:43 AM
And we can just stall them by saying we want people to get organized or some random bs like that

###

TheNG11/1/2019, 4:46:18 PM
I mean there’s plenty of ways to slow down talks

TheNG11/1/2019, 4:46:29 PM
We have reps demands in our back pocket

TheNG11/1/2019, 4:46:40 PM
The various humiliating joke terms

###

Leo the Great11/1/2019, 6:01:53 PM
I don’t think the discussion was about about actually finding peace

Leo the Great11/1/2019, 6:02:08 PM
Rather two different ways of prolonging it till they are dead

Roquentin11/1/2019, 6:02:17 PM
ah

Roquentin11/1/2019, 6:02:26 PM
well the not including thme is a goood stlal tactic

Leo the Great11/1/2019, 6:02:33 PM
Drag peace talks vs insist on separating them

Roquentin11/1/2019, 6:02:44 PM
separate talks for anyone not kertchogg proper

###

underlordgc10/2/2019, 8:41:11 PM
super memey if we start refusing to reconmize their reps

Leo the Great10/2/2019, 8:41:16 PM
sisyphis

underlordgc10/2/2019, 8:41:22 PM
def will give us two more months of infra grinding

###

underlordgc9/27/2019, 10:07:43 PM
in 3 days they'll have their surrender chance again

underlordgc9/27/2019, 10:08:42 PM(edited 9/27/2019, 10:10:11 PM)
but, october is such an Inauspicious time for surrendering

underlordgc9/27/2019, 10:09:00 PM
November is much better imho

underlordgc9/27/2019, 10:09:33 PM
I propose we replace ng and sphinx with george and myself so that we can ensure their won;t be an october peace

###

ONTQ1Qp.png

 

Praise Dio. Every !@#$ing day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, we stalled it because of some military objectives and tS was relatively fresh. There have been multiple break offs caused by your side though, including the most recent one which was based on this plan most likely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest PhantomThiefB
1 minute ago, ArcKnox said:

Hi! You seem to have posted the oft repeated myth that Coalition A is responsible for breakdown of peace talks. We here at the Council to Restore Pure Decadence to Orbis feel it is our duty to correct the record when and where these inaccuracies occur.

 Spoken like a true pixel hugger. Really need that rebuild money, don't you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, SleepingNinja said:

 Spoken like a true pixel hugger. Really need that rebuild money, don't you?

Hi! The Council provides this service free of charge to the people of Orbis and therefore we receive no compensation for these posts; only a sense of pride and accomplishment at reducing ignorance one post at a time!

Praise Dio. Every !@#$ing day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest PhantomThiefB
Just now, ArcKnox said:

Hi! The Council provides this service free of charge to the people of Orbis and therefore we receive no compensation for these posts; only a sense of pride and accomplishment at reducing ignorance one post at a time!

Okay boomer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, SleepingNinja said:

The peace talks could have actually progressed the day after Coalition A posted their admission of defeat. Their leadership is just too much of a bunch of pixel huggers to agree to terms. Yes you read that right.

Just for context if not wanting to war and keep your precious infra and resources by staying at peace, stubbornly protecting your collected pixels(banks) at the cost of your membership is pixel hugging too, plain and simple. Like please "you asked a ridiculous sum of 50B" yes that's how negotiating and bartering works, you aim high and end up meeting in the middle (or lower depending on your level of speechcraft) it's not rocket science.

Peace talks would not progress because Coalition B kept moving the goal posts and for a long time forced Coalition A to effectively negotiate blindfolded and deafened. It took months of negotiation before Coalition B would allow Coalition A to even see most of the proposed peace terms.

I'm not sure where pixel hugging comes into this. tCW will fight wars, tCW has done in the past, it is now, and it will continue to do so in the future. The problem a lot of people have is with this global that shows no sign of letting up. It showed no sign of letting up before tCW were forced to join the fight against OD in GW15. There are two global wars going on simultaneously... do you not realise how ridiculous that sounds. In the real world that's like saying World War I and World War II will happen at the same time...

12 minutes ago, Roquentin said:

You knew what was discussed in your own bloc's server. Their plans to escalate were known. 

So are you saying that we should have betrayed our allies to you as well now? All that would have happened is you would have hit them even sooner for daring to consider fighting against the rule of OD.

14 minutes ago, Roquentin said:

This whole thing where we were obsessed with grinding your allies into dust is just your projection. They were pretty aggressive to begin with and triggered a treaty.

It's a reasonable presumption to make based on the actions of OD so far.

14 minutes ago, Roquentin said:

It's not. Entering prolongs it because it gives the other side leverage and they look for any sliver of hope to go back to fighting on everything. They could have made progress at this point.  We don't have a reason to end it without getting the stuff in the terms. We've been willing to let individual alliances leave that don't have a stake in it.

And allowing you to beat down our allies would have burnt any bridges there. OD burnt the bridge between OD and tCW by attacking tCW Bloc. We weren't then going to burn our bridges with the bloc by not defending them against a bunch of people who were actively pushing us away.

 

24 minutes ago, Roquentin said:

I don't really see this as chasing anyone out. I've had to repeat it time and time again that most of these alliances will be in decent condition. The prospect of anyone actually quitting is limited to people who were just a few rounds away anyway. The only alliance that died was CoS and they were having issues in Surf's Up. It wasn't us that did it and we're not behind SK or Empyrea's activity issues either. Yes, Leo said that attrition would be good to limit tS' power projection but those were low hanging fruit who would have left in any war with intensity. At the end of the day, it's still the people who are hardcore who are sticking around anyway and are pretty well-equipped to handle it. Like if it was really a situation where we felt these alliances were in serious danger of collapse, then we'd be a lot different in handling this. What we don't like is them deploying the logdumps as a way to somehow shame us into acquiescing when we're on the hook for the statements either way regardless of how literal they were.  "let us kill you for this." That doesn't really sound too smart when in multiple instances even your own leader acknowledged KERTCHOGG's stance was that we were dead men walking well before those logs were dumped.

Whether this is your intention, or what you feel is happening, is kind of irrelevant. it is really what's happening. I can appreciate you might not like some of the tactics on Coalition A's side, just like they don't like some of the tactics on Coalition B's side.

From what i've seen, and heard, in previous wars, yes IC the two sides might hate each other's guts, OOC it's been generally civil and often the two sides are still mates at some kind of level. GW14 and GW15 has descended into an OOC slogging match and the environment has turned totally toxic. At this point it seems like both sides have got legions of people trying to find any excuse possible to report people on the other side to try and get them banned. Whether there truly are people trawling through nations and logs to see if they can find excuses to try and get people banned, I don't know, but it certainly seems like it.

BOTH sides could do a hell of a lot more to turn this game back into exactly that, a game. Right now it feels like a school playground.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, LukeTP said:

Peace talks would not progress because Coalition B kept moving the goal posts and for a long time forced Coalition A to effectively negotiate blindfolded and deafened. It took months of negotiation before Coalition B would allow Coalition A to even see most of the proposed peace terms.

The reasoning for the procedure was well known. For a while your own alliance agreed with it.

 

1 minute ago, LukeTP said:

I'm not sure where pixel hugging comes into this. tCW will fight wars, tCW has done in the past, it is now, and it will continue to do so in the future. The problem a lot of people have is with this global that shows no sign of letting up. It showed no sign of letting up before tCW were forced to join the fight against OD in GW15. There are two global wars going on simultaneously... do you not realise how ridiculous that sounds. In the real world that's like saying World War I and World War II will happen at the same time...

I'm not sure what you wanted in terms of it letting up. The reasoning was clear as to why it was longer.

People keep saying it's the same one.

 
1 minute ago, LukeTP said:

So are you saying that we should have betrayed our allies to you as well now? All that would have happened is you would have hit them even sooner for daring to consider fighting against the rule of OD.

You could have defused the situation entirely by nipping it at the origin. That's not really a betrayal especially given that we've fought alongside each other for so long. It just feels like you wanted to make it blow it up.

1 minute ago, LukeTP said:

It's a reasonable presumption to make based on the actions of OD so far.

And allowing you to beat down our allies would have burnt any bridges there. OD burnt the bridge between OD and tCW by attacking tCW Bloc. We weren't then going to burn our bridges with the bloc by not defending them against a bunch of people who were actively pushing us away.

TCW bloc started it. The underlying tensions weren't really ones you cared to sort out either. I mean, it's pretty clear rather than actively pushing you away that internal sentiment in TCW was against OD for quite sometime. It seems more like you just  didn't want it to work out, frankly.

1 minute ago, LukeTP said:

 

Whether this is your intention, or what you feel is happening, is kind of irrelevant. it is really what's happening. I can appreciate you might not like some of the tactics on Coalition A's side, just like they don't like some of the tactics on Coalition B's side.

From what i've seen, and heard, in previous wars, yes IC the two sides might hate each other's guts, OOC it's been generally civil and often the two sides are still mates at some kind of level. GW14 and GW15 has descended into an OOC slogging match and the environment has turned totally toxic. At this point it seems like both sides have got legions of people trying to find any excuse possible to report people on the other side to try and get them banned. Whether there truly are people trawling through nations and logs to see if they can find excuses to try and get people banned, I don't know, but it certainly seems like it.

BOTH sides could do a hell of a lot more to turn this game back into exactly that, a game. Right now it feels like a school playground.

I mean I don't notice a faster decline than in any other war.

I would say the tension that has led to that climate has been brewing for that time period due to the underlying rivalries/grudges that haven't gone away.  Well before the logdumps,  the implication that the war was one that would kill the game or wipe out trust entirely was openly touted.  So when people have seen it as an existential struggle the entire time e.g. the hit on Chaos was depicted as a plan to kill both Chaos/KETOG off completely and then they said we had committed the greatest crime ever by hitting TKR, then the tensions will be high. With reports, that's a different dimension where people may have gotten used to a more permissive environment and there's been a cultural shift to less tolerance for questionable content. Of course not all reports are in good faith, but most of them have been by people believing x was in the wrong. Reports aren't really something that should be politicized.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, LukeTP said:

You've said a number of times in this thread that you have no reason to end the war. Perhaps that is true. If that is true, then that shows that you have no intention of ending the war (at least not yet), so it is not Coalition A and/or The Commonwealth and/or tCW Bloc and/or Farksphere prolonging the war, but that it is OD prolonging the war.

If you want to negotiate peace, send a rep. If you don't want to peace, stop complaining about our absence of desire to peace.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Epi said:

If you want to negotiate peace, send a rep. If you don't want to peace, stop complaining about our absence of desire to peace.

Maybe you should scroll up some posts.

I'm also going to page @Princess Adrienne and @Prefonteen, I'm sure they'd be delighted to hear what else you have to offer.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Epi said:

If you want to negotiate peace, send a rep. If you don't want to peace, stop complaining about our absence of desire to peace.

We did, Sphinx was trying to negotiate on behalf of Coalition B. You guys didn't want peace. He was wasting his time.

If Coalition B had been open to peace, there would be peace right now. There was more than enough time to do it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, LukeTP said:

We did, Sphinx was trying to negotiate on behalf of Coalition B. You guys didn't want peace. He was wasting his time.

If Coalition B had been open to peace, there would be peace right now. There was more than enough time to do it.

We didn't want peace at any price. Sphinx was willing to drop things he wanted before because he was under pressure. That's the difference. We were not in a rush since it's us on the line. Again, they hate us more and aren't our "old friends".

Edited by Roquentin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we're being honest, Coalition A. delayed a lot longer than they needed to, even on trivial stuff.

Regarding the current day though, if Sphinx/Fark don't want to be at war, they can send a rep to negotiate peace. They haven't, so it's unfair to claim we're keeping you all at war. If anything, TCW/Fark's actions of late have proven they now perceive themselves as the aggressor. @LukeTP

Link to comment
Share on other sites

..or YOU'RE ALL just obstinate, gaslighting, mulish, spiteful jerkoffs that can't do anything except backpedal and argue in circles for the past year +

daily-morning-awesomeness-35-photos-1710

 

 

  • Haha 2
  • Upvote 1

-SAXON-

-Warband Leader of the Nordic Sea Raiders-

Niflheimr%20riki.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Roquentin said:

Nope. You just already have a negative predisposition and it might just have to do with whatever vision your alliance has where peace is good. You seem to value peace for some reason when we get nothing out of it. Our reasoning has been explained ad nauseam. If you don't like it that's too bad.

We've had to deal with these people for years, so we're not going to listen to someone who popped up out of nowhere and thinks he knows what's up. You completely miss the incentives on our side and there's at least one person(Avakael) who was honest enough to point out, that we have little reason to end it. Even so, there were terms presented. The Fark that has become a thing as of late isn't the same one it was before. The FA has been decided evidently by someone biased as of late, so that they would position against us as opposed to Fark's previous lack of interest in either side doesn't surprise me. Would you not expect to get trashed in the logs? I'm sure plenty of people have logs of you getting trashed. Hell the heroes you're upholding now have trashed you plenty, so yeah you are full of crap and you're where you've wanted to be.

This is bullshit. You literally have started a war in the past screw with people's rebuild. You rogued those people and made an alliance to attack them later on. That's real damage. You pounced on peripheral allies with the demand they drop treaties and tried to isolate us. 

Then in this war you're one of the biggest causes for us having to take such radical measures. We won't put up with the level of vitriol and not take it seriously lmao.

Hahahahahaha nice.  I haven’t been hit with a “shut up, you don’t get to speak because you just showed up” yet. Thanks for that.  Really puts it into perspective how absolutely crazy you people really are.    If anything I should be a welcome addition to the community because I don’t have a completely negative opinion of NPO and BK and the rest of your sphere and if you don’t view it as your job to change the opinions of yourselves amongst an unaligned bloc, that’s your FA prerogative and failure but hey let’s not let obvious observations get in the way of things.   You had 4 months to talk to us and don’t give me the bullshit that you chose not to do so because Kit is FA at Fark now, there were 10 other alliances and you just decided to punt on us and see what happened down the line.
 

And uh, I get that you might be loosing it with how often you need to WoT to defend yourself and shit like that, but you put us here by 1) ignoring us and 2) attacking the ally of our ally and then preempting us. 
 

And it’s not like this could have avoided if you did any FA work instead of being lazy and just rolling off to war. 

  • Haha 1

:nyan:The Volleyball :nyan: 

Avanti Immortali

 

..one, two, Jimmy's coming for you...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Curufinwe
1 hour ago, Epi said:

DM me in the morning on discord, Epimetheus#0222 and I'll explain our side of the story. Ultimately we didn't initiate this war, this was something TCW has been planning for well over a month. We exhausted every resource trying to prevent it and delayed our attacks for as long as possible, until definitive evidence and testimony manifested itself proving these alliances would enter. 

If Immortals, Weebunism etc. Had approached us perhaps this could've been resolved. But they committed themselves to the war and paid the price for it. Its just as much their failure for not reaching out to us and it is ours for not reaching out to them. 

But ultimately we harbor no Ill will towards Fark or Immortals. In all honesty, you guys were betrayed just like we were. You just didn't know it at the time. 

Screenshot-20200118-040514.jpg

Screenshot-20200118-040517.jpg

Screenshot-20200118-040519.jpgScreenshot-20200118-040522.jpg

And this is why you don't attack the mdp ally of the guy who's got admin in your bloc server. It's likely to bite you in the ass. 

Personally I'm surprised it took an entire week for tCW's server to leak.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Dr James Wilson said:

Hahahahahaha nice.  I haven’t been hit with a “shut up, you don’t get to speak because you just showed up” yet. Thanks for that.  Really puts it into perspective how absolutely crazy you people really are.    If anything I should be a welcome addition to the community because I don’t have a completely negative opinion of NPO and BK and the rest of your sphere and if you don’t view it as your job to change the opinions of yourselves amongst an unaligned bloc, that’s your FA prerogative and failure but hey let’s not let obvious observations get in the way of things.   You had 4 months to talk to us and don’t give me the bullshit that you chose not to do so because Kit is FA at Fark now, there were 10 other alliances and you just decided to punt on us and see what happened down the line.
 

And uh, I get that you might be loosing it with how often you need to WoT to defend yourself and shit like that, but you put us here by 1) ignoring us and 2) attacking the ally of our ally and then preempting us. 
 

And it’s not like this could have avoided if you did any FA work instead of being lazy and just rolling off to war. 

Hi, we sat in talks to attempt a deescalation where you informed us that Immortals would be attacking. We made a good faith effort. You promised war. So we hit you first. Seems pretty simple to me!

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Epi said:

DM me in the morning on discord, Epimetheus#0222 and I'll explain our side of the story. Ultimately we didn't initiate this war, this was something TCW has been planning for well over a month. We exhausted every resource trying to prevent it and delayed our attacks for as long as possible, until definitive evidence and testimony manifested itself proving these alliances would enter. 

If Immortals, Weebunism etc. Had approached us perhaps this could've been resolved. But they committed themselves to the war and paid the price for it. Its just as much their failure for not reaching out to us and it is ours for not reaching out to them. 

But ultimately we harbor no Ill will towards Fark or Immortals. In all honesty, you guys were betrayed just like we were. You just didn't know it at the time. 

Screenshot-20200118-040514.jpg

Screenshot-20200118-040517.jpg

Screenshot-20200118-040519.jpgScreenshot-20200118-040522.jpg

And this is why you don't attack the mdp ally of the guy who's got admin in your bloc server. It's likely to bite you in the ass. 

I mean if Farksphere wants to be used by tCW and co, good on them I guess?

  • Thanks 1

Queen of Chaos

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Pasky Darkfire said:

This is still going huh? And still wildly off topic from the original post... Good thing uh... Good thing this thread is still open. aaaayup...

giphy.gif

Should point out where George said he was going to do something in Coal A, then went and did it, i.e kick BK members and attempt to steal their bank. That's quite on topic! I look forward to the removal and disavowing of Demacia's actions. 

Edited by Shadowthrone
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and the Guidelines of the game and community.