A (Not So) Brief Note on the Narrative

[Prefonteen]

5 hours ago, Kastor said:

Your concerns about Rose, and other spheres in general, are wrong. Alliances can decide to join in or not depending on whatever reasoning they want. This isn't new, it was established by Prefontaine with the "TEst Edict" and used by The Syndicate against Alpha, thus allowing non-treaty paperless ties within Orbis. While this wasn't the first time it has been used, it is the most major of the first times, and used by YOUR LEADER to AID him in a war where they would have suffered heavy losses without help. So again, tell me where anything you said isn't precedent your side has used to order dog piles on your political opponents. 

 

How about another example, when your entire sphere + Grumpy(who, was paperless) attacked Terminus Est. You used the "TEst Edict" then as well, where were the posts clamoring on the forums for aid and how unfair it was people who weren't tied were helping each other?

 

I know this is past stuff, but the point is, this has largely been done by your side, claiming the moral high ground here isn't good. Also, remember, you went OFFENSIVE. You are the aggressor. Remember that. 

 

 

Also, I know you're TKR, but when you ally Pre, he's your leader.

I'm Partisan, not Rose. What are you talking about lmao.

Putting all that aside: You can't go oMg qUaCk HeGeMoNy when we havent made any moves to secure dominance, when we have been rivalled in size by one party or the other since the end of last war (consistently), and when you're working backroom sphere-wide paperless agreements while also having 3/4 (HM, Swamp, TCW) aboard the "roll quacky" train, with the 4th (rose) being a work in progress.

Well, you can. But I'd say at that point we're entirely understandably forced to swing before you do it yourself. And that's why we're here.

33 minutes ago, Toph said:

I mean it seems pretty relevant to me. It really was not that long ago that all this happened. You were there, I was there, most people who are still the most vocal and powerful people in this game were there when the things happened that Kastor mentioned. The fact that these issues are constantly coming up and we're all finding ourselves circling back to them is par for the course for this game. There is clearly a reason why we keep needing to have this conversation.

On that note it seems pretty irresponsible to me to completely disregard the past as if it has no bearing on the present when it, in fact, is the entire underlying premise behind the OP. If we want to have an honest discussion about where we go in the future with the meta, we have to consider where we came from and not use toxic rhetoric like calling something "ridiculous" and "garbage". If you want this thread to have any significance whatsoever it's probably not a good idea to quickly disregard what people have to say, unless of course your aim is to simply spread propaganda.

Kastor is bringing up things Prefontaine did. Prefontaine has nothing to do with this war. Kastor is attributing Pref's actions to me (Prefonteen/Partisan, leader of t$).

So no. It's not relevant and yes, we will disregard it ;).

16 minutes ago, Smith said:

I've personally spent 4 years trying to appease people about something I've had no control over. We've been rolled with it either as an outright CB or used as an argument against us multiple times. If people aren't satisfied with that by now they are never going to be and I don't consider it our responsibility to continue trying to satisfy those people. It is Sisyphean.

Cooper has only been trying for two years so he's still got some spark in him but he's not going to be able to address it either since it happened years before he joined the game

I can. And my stamina is eternal.

[TRM]

5 hours ago, Micchan said:

The problem is always the same, too many people think you can win in this game

More correctly, too many people want to win the game, and from my standpoint, that's just wrong. It's the reason I was pro Chaos, KETOG, and multispheres in general. 

When you have a looming threat of Quack on the other 3 spheres in Orbis, you leave them no choice but to form a coalition and band together to fight the larger opponent. Or what would you rather have them do, lube up and get rolled instead? 

We can play the blame game all day. We can keep talking on how MuH SeKrIt TrEaTiEs BaD, making forum thread after forum thread trying to snatch the moral high ground, telling our members how we are right here, and therefore keep up moral. We can keep telling the other that they are in the wrong here, but do realize that there is one, and only one, uniting force in the game right now, and that's Quack. At the end of the day, the rest of the game has realized that Quack is a threat, when will Quack realize that themselves? Or maybe they have, and simply don't care. 

[Cooper_]

4 hours ago, Sweeeeet Ronny D said:

I still find it amazing that quack finds it difficult to recognize that your sphere was a threat to every other sphere in the game, and you say we didn't have a CB, ummm yeah we didn't, you attacked us... again.

Also for our war against TCW, that sphere antagonized Swamp so much that, I dont remember if they came to us, or we went to them, but it took zero effort to decide to join forces.  And it was pretty public how TCW's sphere and HM were going to fight considering how much they had been poking us, and even at one point UPN tried to go around the NAP to hit I think I was 404.

So I appreciate your spin, but not really correct, and honestly I dont know who you are trying to convince here.

Every sphere is a threat to another sphere if you don't have a treaty, so maybe you're right given that the rest of the world was tied together so all that was left was Quack.  But it's still a bad faith argument either way.  I mean you were with TKR when we got rolled because of our "secret treaties" with a single alliance.  We're talking about legitimate sphere-wide MDPs done in secret.  The HM-Swamp deal is more hazy, but the Rose-Swamp MDP is very real and was activated.  They've admitted that to us directly.  I'd think you'd appreciate a want for fairness in how Orbis treats secret treaties, especially ones much more heinous than anything you or TKR were involved in.

I take your point on the inevitability of the showdown with TcW, but there's no question that the decay of TcWsphere had a significant consolidating impact on the meta.  The fallout was 3 steps towards bipolarity whether that's intended or not.  The part that I find hypocritical (moreso your spheremates than yourself) is that the rhetoric they use regarding their vision for the meta does not align at all with their actions.  I haven't known you to be as aggressive on that sort of narrative/ideology, so if you wish I can revise to "Exhibit B: HM - G/G."

8 minutes ago, Orcinus Orca said:

More correctly, too many people want to win the game, and from my standpoint, that's just wrong. It's the reason I was pro Chaos, KETOG, and multispheres in general. 

When you have a looming threat of Quack on the other 3 spheres in Orbis, you leave them no choice but to form a coalition and band together to fight the larger opponent. Or what would you rather have them do, lube up and get rolled instead? 

We can play the blame game all day. We can keep talking on how MuH SeKrIt TrEaTiEs BaD, making forum thread after forum thread trying to snatch the moral high ground, telling our members how we are right here, and therefore keep up moral. We can keep telling the other that they are in the wrong here, but do realize that there is one, and only one, uniting force in the game right now, and that's Quack. At the end of the day, the rest of the game has realized that Quack is a threat, when will Quack realize that themselves? Or maybe they have, and simply don't care. 

The point of this post is that none of the other spheres care any bit about minispheres.  Their words ring hollow with their actions.  Quack clearly isn't that big of a threat given this war, and your own allies are backpedaling on the hegemony narrative because they realize how untenable it is.  We shifted from Quack being IQ, to Quack being run-of-the-mill hegemony, to Quack being smaller than Swamp but "competent," to Quack is a threat.  Let's call it what it is: opportunism.  

And yeah, secret treaties are BAD.  If you care about minispheres, that's not even up for question.  It's why Chaos, why we, were doomed from the start.  If the uniting is done by effectively tying everyone together, you've got consolidation and bipolarity.  There were many choices here, and all of them were made since the beginning against any sort of minispheres meta.  

The reason I made this post is because I actually give a damn about this.  I'm tired of hearing hypocrisy from the same sorts of people who continue to rattle on about it in their narratives and then just undercut it in their actions.  It's why minispheres will never work.  So Rebs... if you want to see a dynamic meta, tell your friends to cut the bs too.  

[Shiho Nishizumi]

11 minutes ago, Orcinus Orca said:

When you have a looming threat of Quack on the other 3 spheres in Orbis, you leave them no choice but to form a coalition and band together to fight the larger opponent. Or what would you rather have them do, lube up and get rolled instead? 

Looming threat of... us having cordial relationships with Swamp, agreeing to Rose's request to let Camelot be once asked to do so (and if I need remind people here, as they are seemingly pretending otherwise; we weren't the only skeptics pertaining Camelot), and doing nothing when Sphinx called for us to help him vs HM; help which, had we provided, would've given us both an opportune window to hit HM and secured us an ally for our so-called "hegemony". Right. These just being starters, of course.

As Partisan told Hodor, we simply recognize that all of the above, done to accommodate for your (irrational) fear, have not been noted and have been ignored in your hollow, inconsistent and hypocritical spiel. 

[namukara]

In my experience, the narrative (everyones foreign affairs narrative for several years) is utter bull, people will do whatever suits them and they won't be bound by whatever they have said they will be bound by, including ideology or their words. Additionally, everybody likes to insist that others adopt particular policies that they are unwilling to adopt themselves: we saw that when TI was pressured by its then allies to drop several of its treaties despite said allies making no attempt to drop powerful treaties of their own.

[TRM]

24 minutes ago, Cooper_ said:

The point of this post is that none of the other spheres care any bit about minispheres.  Their words ring hollow with their actions.  Quack clearly isn't that big of a threat given this war, and your own allies are backpedaling on the hegemony narrative because they realize how untenable it is.  We shifted from Quack being IQ, to Quack being run-of-the-mill hegemony, to Quack being smaller than Swamp but "competent," to Quack is a threat.  Let's call it what it is: opportunism.  

And yeah, secret treaties are BAD.  If you care about minispheres, that's not even up for question.  It's why Chaos, why we, were doomed from the start.  If the uniting is done by effectively tying everyone together, you've got consolidation and bipolarity.  There were many choices here, and all of them were made since the beginning against any sort of minispheres meta.  

You are saying is that smaller spheres cannot form coalitions to defend or attack a larger sphere, in which solo they would have no chance at doing. In other words, "Yall can play with that multisphere idea. We at Quack will just roll you when we please, oh, and coalitions = secret treaties. Pls no sekrit treaty, kthx". 

 

31 minutes ago, Cooper_ said:

The reason I made this post is because I actually give a damn about this.  I'm tired of hearing hypocrisy from the same sorts of people who continue to rattle on about it in their narratives and then just undercut it in their actions.  It's why minispheres will never work.  

Which part do you care about? The fact that "multispheres will never work" and you want to give up on them, much like Quack has already done, or that fact that you care to not get rolled?

33 minutes ago, Cooper_ said:

 So Rebs... if you want to see a dynamic meta, tell your friends to cut the bs too.  

What exactly do you mean by "dynamic"? I am genuinely curious. 

[Prefonteen]

33 minutes ago, namukara said:

In my experience, the narrative (everyones foreign affairs narrative for several years) is utter bull, people will do whatever suits them and they won't be bound by whatever they have said they will be bound by, including ideology or their words. Additionally, everybody likes to insist that others adopt particular policies that they are unwilling to adopt themselves: we saw that when TI was pressured by its then allies to drop several of its treaties despite said allies making no attempt to drop powerful treaties of their own.

Excuse me?
 

You TI lot hold against us that we are "too big" a sphere. Simultaneously, you hold against us that we did not want to link up with TI and its entire sphere of allies in what would have been a genuine hegemony-size grouping.

Pick one narrative, and stick to it. You're doing yourselves no favors here.

Edited November 10, 2020 by Prefonteen

[Cooper_]

25 minutes ago, Orcinus Orca said:

You are saying is that smaller spheres cannot form coalitions to defend or attack a larger sphere, in which solo they would have no chance at doing. In other words, "Yall can play with that multisphere idea. We at Quack will just roll you when we please, oh, and coalitions = secret treaties. Pls no sekrit treaty, kthx". 

That isn't what happened here nor is that how coalitions work.  You form a coalition in response to an aggressive power.  Quack was not that nor were they a larger sphere given Swamp.  And we've got both Swamp and Rose admitting that there was a literal treaty in place.  This is gaslighting.  

25 minutes ago, Orcinus Orca said:

Which part do you care about? The fact that "multispheres will never work" and you want to give up on them, much like Quack has already done, or that fact that you care to not get rolled?

I mean I've been consistent in always wanting a multipolar world.  In private and in public, my record shows that.  I can point you to my months of post history against IQ while you left the game.  I never gave up the fight, and I'm still fighting for it now.  Minispheres will never work with the current set of actors who like to parrot it but never follow it, and it's even more disappointing to someone like me who actually cares as a matter of principle more than a political prop.  If you want to take a step back and stop trying to spin my words, you'd realize that I'm telling you that minispheres will only work if people actually try to make it work.  No secret treaties, work with good faith, don't consolidate tiers, and be ok if that means you get rolled or roll others from time to time.  

And frankly I don't think you want to get into a tit for tat because I've already displayed and can continue to display how every other sphere was demonstrably worse for a multipolar world than Quack was.  Every decision of ours was carefully calibrated for the meta, and we made a lot of decisions that were largely helpful.  We cut TI, Ampersand, Soup, etc.  We also turned down entreaties by other spheres to get us to dogpile others (we had opportunities to fight just about every other sphere).  And we kept up good relations and gave people a sense of security regarding our actions and intentions.  We've been nothing but stabilizing and adaptive.  

59 minutes ago, Orcinus Orca said:

What exactly do you mean by "dynamic"? I am genuinely curious. 

I already talked about this in the OP, but it's a world where people stop engaging in grudge warfare hidden by several levels of narrative and spin and where people are forced to rely on FA and milcom to succeed.  The winners and losers should always be changing.  Politics should be challenging and War should be just as challenging.  Treaties should be fluid with enemies becomes friends and vice versa frequently.  

If you want that, you've got to start respecting common precedents and norms set.  Until that point, there will be not trust.  There will be no good faith.  Unless you do that, you also can't unironically claim to want it either. 

[Bobert]

this is going to end well...

[Adrienne]

Rebel, for real? When we were Chaos, we declined to join up with KETOGG against NPO or BK's spheres because we felt that was against the spirit of minispheres and you're seriously going to sit here and tell me you think a coalition of 3-4 spheres against 1 isn't?

Edited November 10, 2020 by Adrienne

[Charles Bolivar]

Who is the intended audience of this topic anyway? We get it, you don't like the war reasoning 🤷‍♂️ 

Edited November 10, 2020 by Charles Bolivar

[Adrienne]

2 minutes ago, Charles Bolivar said:

Who is the intended audience of this topic anyway? 🤷‍♂️ 

You! We made it special for you and everything. Do you like it?

[Charles Bolivar]

Just now, Adrienne said:

You! We made it special for you and everything. Do you like it?

It doesn't really tell me anything I didn't know already. Editing it to emphasise relevance might be a good idea 👍

[Shiho Nishizumi]

43 minutes ago, Cooper_ said:

No secret treaties, work with good faith, don't consolidate tiers, and be ok if that means you get rolled or roll others from time to time.

Unpleasant as it may sound; yes, that's how it works.

Having actually done it myself, it's a risk we accepted when TGH signed KT and split from the treaty web. We got rolled shortly afterwards. We simply took the rolling and focused both on the war itself, and the post-war FA to assist on what eventually materialized as KF. Which, rather ironically, we sat out of.

Talking is easy if you intend to back out at the slightest incovenience.

[Adrienne]

13 minutes ago, Charles Bolivar said:

It doesn't really tell me anything I didn't know already. Editing it to emphasise relevance might be a good idea 👍

Blessed is he who reads all forums replies. For those that do not, may I redirect you to the OP?

[Sisyphus]

30 minutes ago, Charles Bolivar said:

 

[Charles Bolivar]

48 minutes ago, Adrienne said:

Blessed is he who reads all forums replies. For those that do not, may I redirect you to the OP?

Perhaps you should take your own advice and read all of the forum replies. You might find a post from me earlier on the first page 👍

[Hodor]

Count me befuzzled as to who the audience is as well. Ain't nobody engaging y'all except me, Ronny, Charles, and Tyrion.

It's really come down to who has the better propaganda machine and truly it is no surprise y'all win that fight 9 times out of 10. You're not wrong in a lot of your points, but your characterization of them as these black and white issues is disingenuous. I mean let's just take one of your hyperlinks and arguably the single most important post to your argument: Ronny's good faith attempt to dispel the existence of a coherent plan to hit quack aggressively, and an agreement between Swamp and HM to defend each other against Quack (Rose joined in at the last minute), that's not a treaty. That's two spheres who feel like they are threatened assessing their situation. Y'all don't like the fact that HM or the other spheres saw you as a threat, and frick man, that's fine, but you aren't going to turn back the clock and logic them into believing you. Hell, you're not going to logic them into it now that y'all declared the war. So I am seriously curious now what there is left for us to Wall of Text about?

[Adrienne]

2 minutes ago, Charles Bolivar said:

Perhaps you should take your own advice and read all of the forum replies. You might find a post from me earlier on the first page 👍

That wasn't a post saying you didn't read it lol. It was more like "Alright, so you read through all the forums threads, not everyone does. For those who don't, it's fairly well synthesized in the OP."

Edited November 10, 2020 by Adrienne

[Prefonteen]

20 minutes ago, Hodor said:

Count me befuzzled as to who the audience is as well. Ain't nobody engaging y'all except me, Ronny, Charles, and Tyrion.

It's really come down to who has the better propaganda machine and truly it is no surprise y'all win that fight 9 times out of 10. You're not wrong in a lot of your points, but your characterization of them as these black and white issues is disingenuous. I mean let's just take one of your hyperlinks and arguably the single most important post to your argument: Ronny's good faith attempt to dispel the existence of a coherent plan to hit quack aggressively, and an agreement between Swamp and HM to defend each other against Quack (Rose joined in at the last minute), that's not a treaty. That's two spheres who feel like they are threatened assessing their situation. Y'all don't like the fact that HM or the other spheres saw you as a threat, and frick man, that's fine, but you aren't going to turn back the clock and logic them into believing you. Hell, you're not going to logic them into it now that y'all declared the war. So I am seriously curious now what there is left for us to Wall of Text about?

Once again you move the goalpost a bit: We've dealt with months and months of "quack man bad" rhetoric, culminating in a weird, intense outburst of "QUACK MAN IQ QUACK MAN BAD". We engaged every single one of the points brought up, while also bringing forward legitimate gripes of our own regarding the contradictory stances we've encountered (and the restrictive impact those stances have had and still have on quack's diplomatic options and options to appease you).

The arguments brought against us have been a mess, and we have yet to receive much of a response to things we've brought up beyond "quack man bad" (even now, in your post).

I'm not sure why you're going on this spiel of "Well we shouldnt b discussing any of this because you're not going to convince us". That's lazy and frankly bad diplomacy. Interactions - both in private and on the forums - make up a significant part of the (political and general) game. I'm going to keep interacting in public, in my role as a public figurehead of  The Syndicate. You are free to do as you please I guess.

Edited November 10, 2020 by Prefonteen

[Charles Bolivar]

52 minutes ago, Sisyphus said:

 

Heh, I'm just pointing out that attempting to occupy the moral high ground in this conflict instead of taking ownership  for the failings present in your own FA strategy over the past 6ish months is how you ended up in this situation and indicates poor and amateur level FA dealings.

This whole grandstanding of morality is nothing more than a deflection away from your own FA failures and a denial of responsibility from your leadership for ownership of these FA failings. Coalitions don't form on their own after all and given the sheer variety of reasons provided by the members of our "coalition", it's readily apparent that there were significant past grievances or fears stemming from a presumed tS/TKR period of potential dominance. Enough grievances and feats to result in the creation of an ad-hoc coalition anyway. The fact that your FA entirely failed to prevent such a coalition forming is entirely upon you ( and by you , I mean your collective leadership). That's the nature of this game we all play at the end of the day and something we all know particularly well.

Of course, I don't blame you for attempting to deflect responsibility for such a critical failure. I also don't fault you for attempting to make this war about "morality" and whatever else seems to be the talking points.

But as Ice Cube so eloquently said, "who ya fooling?"

 

 

Edited November 10, 2020 by Charles Bolivar

[Prefonteen]

3 minutes ago, Charles Bolivar said:

Heh, I'm just pointing out that attempting to occupy the moral high ground in this conflict instead of taking ownership  for the failings present in your own FA strategy over the past 6ish months is how you ended up in this situation and indicates poor and amateur level FA dealings.

This whole grandstanding of morality is nothing more than a deflection away from your own FA failures and a denial of responsibility from your leadership for ownership of these FA failings. Coalitions don't form on their own after all and given the sheer variety of reasons provided by the members of our "coalition", it's readily apparent that there were significant past grievances or fears stemming from a presumed tS/TKR period of potential dominance. Enough grievances and feats to result in the creation of an ad-hoc coalition anyway. The fact that your FA entirely failed to prevent such a coalition forming is entirely upon you ( and by you , I mean your collective leadership). That's the nature of this game we all play at the end of the day and something we all know particularly well.

Of course, I don't blame you for attempting to deflect responsibility for such a critical failure. I also don't fault you for attempting to make this war about "morality" and whatever else seems to be the talking points.

But as Ice Cube so eloquently said, "who ya fooling?"

 

 

Can you specify what exactly we have done wrong besides not splitting up the TKR-t$ alliance?

[TRM]

1 hour ago, Cooper_ said:

That isn't what happened here nor is that how coalitions work.  You form a coalition in response to an aggressive power.  Quack was not that nor were they a larger sphere given Swamp.  And we've got both Swamp and Rose admitting that there was a literal treaty in place.  This is gaslighting.  

I honestly can't speak about any Rose-Swamp treaty as I am not gov in either spheres, so I don't know anything about it. As for a coalition, that's pretty weak. You don't only form coalitions against an obviously aggressive power. You can form it against any power, i.e. Knightfall. This coalition is hardly different. Obviously the other spheres felt that Quack was a large enough threat to join said coalition. 

1 hour ago, Cooper_ said:

I mean I've been consistent in always wanting a multipolar world.  In private and in public, my record shows that.  I can point you to my months of post history against IQ while you left the game.  I never gave up the fight, and I'm still fighting for it now.  Minispheres will never work with the current set of actors who like to parrot it but never follow it, and it's even more disappointing to someone like me who actually cares as a matter of principle more than a political prop.  If you want to take a step back and stop trying to spin my words, you'd realize that I'm telling you that minispheres will only work if people actually try to make it work.  No secret treaties, work with good faith, don't consolidate tiers, and be ok if that means you get rolled or roll others from time to time.  

Okay, you have cut down on members of Quack. Nonetheless, Quack is by far the strongest power in the game. No sphere can take you on solo, and knowing TKR, it is only time until they want to fight again. How would the smaller spheres defend against Quack's aggression? 

 

1 hour ago, Cooper_ said:

And frankly I don't think you want to get into a tit for tat because I've already displayed and can continue to display how every other sphere was demonstrably worse for a multipolar world than Quack was.  Every decision of ours was carefully calibrated for the meta, and we made a lot of decisions that were largely helpful.  We cut TI, Ampersand, Soup, etc.  We also turned down entreaties by other spheres to get us to dogpile others (we had opportunities to fight just about every other sphere).  And we kept up good relations and gave people a sense of security regarding our actions and intentions.  We've been nothing but stabilizing and adaptive.  

I won't argue who you cut and didn't, that's not worth my time. At the end of the day, Quack has set itself up to be the most powerful sphere(by far) in the game. I don't quite see how being more powerful, or even being on par, with the next 2 spheres combined is "nothing but stabilizing and adaptive". Yes, you adapted to this new meta Rose and HM are trying to create, but not joining it, but by lowkey "beating" it. In other words, by setting yourself up into a position of enough power to beat everyone else with ease. 

2 hours ago, Cooper_ said:

I already talked about this in the OP, but it's a world where people stop engaging in grudge warfare hidden by several levels of narrative and spin and where people are forced to rely on FA and milcom to succeed.  The winners and losers should always be changing.  Politics should be challenging and War should be just as challenging.  Treaties should be fluid with enemies becomes friends and vice versa frequently.  

If you want that, you've got to start respecting common precedents and norms set.  Until that point, there will be not trust.  There will be no good faith.  Unless you do that, you also can't unironically claim to want it either. 

I can't really disagree with that. 

1 hour ago, Adrienne said:

Rebel, for real? When we were Chaos, we declined to join up with KETOGG against NPO or BK's spheres because we felt that was against the spirit of minispheres and you're seriously going to sit here and tell me you think a coalition of 3-4 spheres against 1 isn't?

You disagree with the idea of Chaos and KETOG uniting against a larger foe that *didn't* want to comply with the multisphere idea? What?

How else are the smaller spheres supposed to compete with the bigger spheres? Are we supposed to let them roll over us? At the end of the day, I am one of the most vocal proponents of the multisphere idea, but even I don't agree with just getting rolled over and over again. 

[Smith]

32 minutes ago, Hodor said:

Count me befuzzled as to who the audience is as well. Ain't nobody engaging y'all except me, Ronny, Charles, and Tyrion.

It's really come down to who has the better propaganda machine and truly it is no surprise y'all win that fight 9 times out of 10. You're not wrong in a lot of your points, but your characterization of them as these black and white issues is disingenuous. I mean let's just take one of your hyperlinks and arguably the single most important post to your argument: Ronny's good faith attempt to dispel the existence of a coherent plan to hit quack aggressively, and an agreement between Swamp and HM to defend each other against Quack (Rose joined in at the last minute), that's not a treaty. That's two spheres who feel like they are threatened assessing their situation. Y'all don't like the fact that HM or the other spheres saw you as a threat, and frick man, that's fine, but you aren't going to turn back the clock and logic them into believing you. Hell, you're not going to logic them into it now that y'all declared the war. So I am seriously curious now what there is left for us to Wall of Text about?

How quickly people forget! Hodor. Can I ask you something? Why is the winning side always confused that the losing side doesn't just shut up? It happens in almost every war. The losing side never shuts up. Do you remember DDR? TGH did not exactly shut up.

The only time there is an exception to that rule is when the alliance being rolled is so ostracized from the community they have no hope of appealing to public support. Like the recent dogpiling of TCW.

Perhaps our efforts here are futile but Quack leadership fought a war a year ago with much of current HM leadership. A major part of the CB for that war was Sphinx logs and now we are being told by the same alliances and people that Sphinx logs in the exact same context are a bad CB. It's worth repeating. 

Edited November 10, 2020 by Smith

[Arawra]

12 minutes ago, Orcinus Orca said:

Okay, you have cut down on members of Quack. Nonetheless, Quack is by far the strongest power in the game. No sphere can take you on solo, and knowing TKR, it is only time until they want to fight again. How would the smaller spheres defend against Quack's aggression?

I don't know... Looking at TKR's recent hIStOry, I think it's only a matter of time until they get dogpi--