Jump to content

A (Not So) Brief Note on the Narrative


Cooper_
 Share

Recommended Posts

20 minutes ago, Orcinus Orca said:

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. 

There are multiple ways to compete and to not let them roll over you. I can think of several. Plotting against them with a coalition size that greatly outnumbers them and trying to get them to split as a war goal never worked though, as everyone here should be painfully aware of.

In the case of KETOGG + Chaos, in addition to thinking it against the spirit of what we were going for, we also didn't think it would be advantageous to play into NPO paranoia and lack of confidence in the idea of minispheres which is all a combo hit - regardless of who against - would have accomplished. We weren't wrong.

In this case, you went overkill. If you wanted minispheres to be viable, you don't build a dogpile coalition and call it necessary. It was not, we've already shown this. Everyone wanting to hit us is a different case than everyone needing to hit us. Take your NPOLT PTSD elsewhere, to people who didn't have to deal with it firsthand.

  • Upvote 3
  • Downvote 2

BrOQBND.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Adrienne said:

In the case of KETOGG + Chaos, in addition to thinking it against the spirit of what we were going for, we also didn't think it would be advantageous to play into NPO paranoia and lack of confidence in the idea of minispheres which is all a combo hit - regardless of who against - would have accomplished. We weren't wrong.

You didn't really answer my question on what we should've done as Chaos without forming coalitions. 

 

3 minutes ago, Adrienne said:

In this case, you went overkill. If you wanted minispheres to be viable, you don't build a dogpile coalition and call it necessary. It was not, we've already shown this. Everyone wanting to hit us is a different case than everyone needing to hit us.

I can't really claim to have gone anywhere. Swamp was obligated to join either way in the defense of tCW. As for Rose, we needed those mid tier, and again, we can argue this, but I don't see the point in arguing specifically this. 

5 minutes ago, Adrienne said:

Take your NPOLT PTSD elsewhere, to people who didn't have to deal with it firsthand.

I haven't actually mentioned NPOLT at all. Instead, I made a comparison to multispheres in the past. We aren't arguing that war, we are arguing the principles behind multispheres. I am not sure why you deemed it necessary to bring NPO into this. 🤷‍♂️

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Prefonteen said:

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

Well, from my viewpoint, I'd say this war is a result of tS's arrogance and hubris coming home to roost. Course that's just me. For the sheer kaleidoscope of other opinions and viewpoints present in our "'coalition" you could just you know, read what they have said? The forums are littered with explanations after all.

Of course, however, it suits your narrative better to just ignore all of it and instead attempt to assert that because there isn't one singular reasoning for this war, that the war is somehow inherently false and immoral. And if that works for you, then go on right ahead. 

To the best of my knowledge, however, and your own I might add, coalitions don't form against spheres which haven't made some critical error or series of critical errors in managing their FA over a long period of time. Sometimes alliances manage to work their way out of it, sometimes they don't. 

But let's not pretend this is some test of morality shall we? We both know this war is only immoral because you are losing.

Edited by Charles Bolivar
  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 5
  • Downvote 1

Untitled.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Shiho Nishizumi said:

And who actually dealt with it from beginning to end, rather than drop out midway through.

While I appreciate you going for the character attack instead of attacking my argument, this doesn't really add to the conversation. 

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Orcinus Orca said:

While I appreciate you going for the character attack instead of attacking my argument, this doesn't really add to the conversation. 

For one thing, it's a highlight of inconsistency between words and deeds.

Secondly, my previous reply got ignored. So I'd suggest you to address the whole of conversations, rather than the ones you deem convenient to do so.

  • Haha 1
 
G3.gif.d8066d8dc749ad2d0835fe69095fa73b.gif
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Shiho Nishizumi said:

For one thing, it's a highlight of inconsistency between words and deeds.

Secondly, my previous reply got ignored. So I'd suggest you to address the whole of conversations, rather than the ones you deem convenient to do so.

I've been inconsistent in what exactly? And how does that relate to the topic at hand? 

I'm not gonna argue with every Joe on 5th Avenue. Talk to our FA if you feel chatty. 

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Prefonteen said:

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.

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 ;).

I can. And my stamina is eternal.

I'll bite to this obvious bait:

 

Did you or did you not use paperless agreements with Roz Wei, Terminus Est, and other alliances that suffeciantly is covered in the TEst Doctrine of "Everyone having an ODoAP with everyone, because alliances can make up their minds in the moment" 

 

When you were leader of Hogwarts, did you or did you not sign paperless agreements with alliances in order to protect yourself?

 

The reason this is relevant is because you have CONSTANTLY engaged and fought wars on this action, you have constantly hinged and broken alliances over this, and now you wanna cry wolf that a few spheres came together to roll a common threat?

 

Lets be honest, the narrative you're pushing isn't clever or even solid. There's no evidence that these spheres are gonna "group up" and consolidate. They formed together out of need, not unlike spheres have done in the past. Did you think diplomacy died when NPO did? 

  • Upvote 3
  • Downvote 2

IMG_2989.png?ex=65e9efa9&is=65d77aa9&hm=

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Charles Bolivar said:

Well, from my viewpoint, I'd say this war is a result of tS's arrogance and hubris coming home to roost. Course that's just me. For the sheer kaleidoscope of other opinions and viewpoints present in our "'coalition" you could just you know, read what they have said? The forums are littered with explanations after all.

Of course, however, it suits your narrative better to just ignore all of it and instead attempt to assert that because there isn't one singular reasoning for this war, that the war is somehow inherently false and immoral. And if that works for you, then go on right ahead. 

To the best of my knowledge, however, and your own I might add, coalitions don't form against spheres which haven't made some critical error or series of critical errors in managing their FA over a long period of time. Sometimes alliances manage to work their way out of it, sometimes they don't. 

But let's not pretend this is some test of morality shall we? We both know this war is only immoral because you are losing.

Our arrogance over what? You still haven't given any examples to justify these arguments. Only one I have seen mentioned is our criticisms of Camelot post war for their involvement and the involvement of nearly their entire high gov in the mess that was the peace negotiations in NPOLT. I've said it before and I'll say it again, I think our skepticism of them was completely justified and we were not the only alliance that was partaking. Rose asked us to cool it and we did in respect for them. That was 6 months ago and we were happy to comply when approached about it.

If our arrogance was so overpowering please let me know the many instances where it was so prevalent it justified the entire game hopping on this war against us lol   

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours 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 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.  

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. 

You don't dictate what is "aggressive" or how a coalition is formed. You are not the world police and you do not dictate the rules. The CB is sound, you were an emerging threat to the stability and balance of power in Orbis. With anti-hegemony policies from various alliances you should have expected to get challenged before you grew too big to challenge. 

 

Just because you exist, you can be a threat, thats why there are no neutrals in this game. 

23 minutes ago, Adrienne said:

There are multiple ways to compete and to not let them roll over you. I can think of several. Plotting against them with a coalition size that greatly outnumbers them and trying to get them to split as a war goal never worked though, as everyone here should be painfully aware of.

In the case of KETOGG + Chaos, in addition to thinking it against the spirit of what we were going for, we also didn't think it would be advantageous to play into NPO paranoia and lack of confidence in the idea of minispheres which is all a combo hit - regardless of who against - would have accomplished. We weren't wrong.

In this case, you went overkill. If you wanted minispheres to be viable, you don't build a dogpile coalition and call it necessary. It was not, we've already shown this. Everyone wanting to hit us is a different case than everyone needing to hit us. Take your NPOLT PTSD elsewhere, to people who didn't have to deal with it firsthand.

You had several chances to drop the Syndicate treaty and you refused. You can't be the #1 and #2-3 powers, allied with tons of satellites, and not expect people to perceive you as a threat. Stop grandstanding.

  • Upvote 4
  • Downvote 2

IMG_2989.png?ex=65e9efa9&is=65d77aa9&hm=

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Smith said:

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. 

Shut up you Ponzi Scheming turd!

Sure, I guess my issue is that in the circumstances you laid out and most notably in NPOLT (which maybe have prompted this response?) there was absolutely no good faith effort to engage. Y’all have taken the good faith efforts and quite literally just yelled “liar.” That doesn’t create an enticing incentive system.

You’ve also got people like Ronny and I who are genuinely curious what the smoking gun evidence is that keeps getting alluded to and will absolutely change our minds when shown it, but you all keep teeing up arguments for the people that aren’t even here.
 

What I’ve seen is perfectly acceptable evidence for a war and a pre-emptive one, but I’ve not seen some grand conspiracy that keeps being referenced.

Edited by Hodor
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Orcinus Orca said:

I've been inconsistent in what exactly? And how does that relate to the topic at hand? 

I'm not gonna argue with every Joe on 5th Avenue. Talk to our FA if you feel chatty. 

Preaching about being pro something and then bowing out when it gets tricky isn't really sticking to your guns.

It relates because of your claims on being pro multisphere, yet several of the things stated here contradict such support. Such have already been argued by Niz and Cooper, so I won't bother rehashing.

They're probably under the same gag order others are, if the embassies are anything to go by.

 
G3.gif.d8066d8dc749ad2d0835fe69095fa73b.gif
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Adrienne said:

I didn't realize that wasn't a rhetorical question, to be perfectly honest. What we would have done in the long run though, I don't know. We didn't exactly get a chance to do any of the ideas we had before getting hit by KETOGG and dragged into a hell war.

So you don't really know, and yet I doubt that you'd just let Chaos get rolled without resistance. That's not you. 

32 minutes ago, Adrienne said:

You didn't need them. You wanted them. You would have been plenty fine and still would have outnumbered us. Maybe Swamp isn't as skilled as the rest of you, as your side likes to point out all the time, but the Rebel I knew from Soup liked a challenge. I guess that's not the case anymore.

This isn't even worth arguing, as it is a MilCom matter. You may be overvaluing Swamp, and I undervaluing them. Alas, I don't see these opinions changing anytime in the forseeable future. 

34 minutes ago, Adrienne said:

You didn't have to, your actions and defense do it for you. NPOLT is the most recent example of a global war we really have, one of its defining features was the NPO-BK secret tie/hegemony allegations, and your side made it very clear that one of the reasons we were hit was hegemony fears. Considering that was coupled with the fact our only real "crime" is that we decided to stay allied, what conclusion am I supposed to reach besides that you guys have an irrational fear of an NPO-BK repeat? Except TKR and t$ are not NPO and BK. Quack is not IQ. We had friendly relations with most all of you. We are not a humongous undefeatable mass. What you're doing to us now - what you would have been able to do to so with less spheres even - would never have been possible in the case of NPO-BK.

I don't speak for my alliance(404), or my bloc(HM). And the same goes vice versa. What our membership/gov/leaders/whoever thinks, I do not always hold the same opinion as them. If anyone has compared Quack to IQ, it was not me, nor will I. Plain as that.

And honestly, if we wanna compare the war against BK and the later NPOLT, I feel as if those are two different things. Fighting just BK(without NPO) was a decent fight, and as I remember, not yet toxic. It was only when NPO joined that the toxicity and our opinions of that war went extremely sour. I really do not see the point in bringing up NPO, or the greater NPOLT. 

38 minutes ago, Adrienne said:

You guys are destroying the principles you claim to believe in because you're scared of something that hasn't happened nor was likely to happen.

Again, you believe that the principles of minispheres is no coalition work, ever. If that is your opinion on how minispheres should work, go for it. You do you. Alas, that is not my personal opinion. If a minor sphere is severely inferior to the larger sphere, it should be able to form coalitions against the larger sphere. Just like, I am sure, we would've, with KETOG, Rose, or whoever. But if no coalition work is that is really how you think multispheres should operate, then this "You didn't need them. You wanted them. You would have been plenty fine and still would have outnumbered us" doesn't even need to be said, as you plainly disagree on the principles of multispheres. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Hodor said:

Shut up you Ponzi Scheming turd!

Sure, I guess my issue is that in the circumstances you laid out and most notably in NPOLT (which maybe have prompted this response?) there was absolutely no good faith effort to engage. Y’all have taken the good faith efforts and quite literally just yelled “liar.” That doesn’t create an enticing incentive system.

You’ve also got people like Ronny and I who are genuinely curious what the smoking gun evidence is that keeps getting alluded to and will absolutely change our minds when shown it, but you all keep teeing up arguments for the people that aren’t even here.
 

What I’ve seen is perfectly acceptable evidence for a war and a pre-emptive one, but I’ve not seen some grand i conspiracy that keeps being referenced.

It was a legitimate business!

Other people more important than me would need to address any logs but if leadership on your side admitted the bolded part talks might go better. As is we are using the same CB SRD and others in HM were fine going along with a year ago against BK but now suddenly it's not good enough.

Instead the same people are rushing to shift the focus on how we prempted and thus attacked first. It makes it difficult to believe your side is actually engaging in good faith especially when there have been other people in government positions on your side making simulatenous arguments like "this was the most fair the war could have been". which are provably wrong. 

Edited by Smith
  • Upvote 2

C0r3Fye.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Hodor said:

Sure, I guess my issue is that in the circumstances you laid out and most notably in NPOLT (which maybe have prompted this response?) there was absolutely no good faith effort to engage. Y’all have taken the good faith efforts and quite literally just yelled “liar.” That doesn’t create an enticing incentive system.

Maybe it's because you started engaging relatively late, but this isn't how I remember it.  We laid out our CB, which was based on precedent we all shared and had previously agreed.  The immediate response was "Hah jokes on you for trying to roll HM and TcW," which by no stretch of the imagination was ever the case nor our intention.  Not a lot of good faith there.  Since then, we've shifted y'all's goalposts from Quack being IQ to Quack being a "potential hegemony" and some vague notion of a threat (who didn't do threatening things?).  I think we've made progress on that front.  

Also, I think you and I both can agree that the point I'm making in this thread is a bit more nuanced than "liar."  More accurately, it would be "stop being hypocrites, or pick a new narrative to always go for."  I'm personally just so tired to see the people who clam to believe in something just trash those principles time and again.  The good faith just isn't there if people aren't willing to respect political norms.  I have a hard time responding to the argument "if they can do it and are doing it yet they say we can't, why should I trust them...?"  The double standards on secret treaties are pretty immense here given the pushback TKR has personally received and been rolled for in the past.  I hope you can understand why I'm at a loss in understanding the motivations here as anything but opportunistic.

54 minutes ago, Kastor said:

You don't dictate what is "aggressive" or how a coalition is formed. You are not the world police and you do not dictate the rules. The CB is sound, you were an emerging threat to the stability and balance of power in Orbis. With anti-hegemony policies from various alliances you should have expected to get challenged before you grew too big to challenge. 

You had several chances to drop the Syndicate treaty and you refused. You can't be the #1 and #2-3 powers, allied with tons of satellites, and not expect people to perceive you as a threat. Stop grandstanding.

This is low-effort.  You can speak to me, and not some ghastly remnant of TKR 3 years ago when my nation wasn't even made.  I know most of Rose's high-gov quite well, and they can tell you that I'm sincere in what I say even if they disagree.  I've been in contact with them probably more than any other alliance these past few months, and we've been nothing but transparent with them.  You're right though, don't believe me.  There's a pretty objective definition of aggressive that you can google.  As for coalitions, I present the entirety of the threads devoted to the meta in the past ~2 years regarding minispheres AND 3 years of EU4 experience, including play with Rose members and gov, on my belt.  

Which CB are you talking about?  First, we were told it was because of T$' treatment of ASM and Cam (which was mostly resolved or not even communicated).  Then, it was because Quack was too big and strong.  Then, it shifted to Rose wanting to make the war better?  Finally, we got a shift to Swamp's chicanery.  As I've said in private to your leadership, the fact that you didn't even come and ask us after the 9 months of good will and trust we built invalidates the underlying ideas set forth in such a CB.  But the finer point here is my original response to Vexz's DoW where I outlined how your approach on the meta is absolutely at odds with your internal actions.  

As for the T$ tie, your gov was made explicitly aware about what we felt.  There was no way we would even consider dropping T$ before we fought a war with them.  We're TKR.  We believe in honor.  I don't think that's surprising.  And if by that chance, you mean the offer made to us to tie Rose, I don't see how that resolves this issue that you're claiming.  Rose is just as powerful as T$.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Shiho Nishizumi said:

Preaching about being pro something and then bowing out when it gets tricky isn't really sticking to your guns.

We are arguing about the principles about multispheres, so I am not quite preaching about anything.

And yes, I am sorry about getting burned out doing MA for Soup, an allied alliance, and helping yet a third alliance with MA. I'll make sure be selfish and not help allies out in the future. Or maybe I should just git gud like you.... hmmmmm. I'll keep that option under consideration. 

Edited by Orcinus Orca
  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Orcinus Orca said:

So you don't really know, and yet I doubt that you'd just let Chaos get rolled without resistance. That's not you. 

You're right, it's not me. Which is why I never said that. And there were several ideas being tossed around in Chaos Leadership internals, but I don't know the viability of them as we never got to try any of them, as I said. 

5 minutes ago, Orcinus Orca said:

Again, you believe that the principles of minispheres is no coalition work, ever. If that is your opinion on how minispheres should work, go for it. You do you. Alas, that is not my personal opinion. If a minor sphere is severely inferior to the larger sphere, it should be able to form coalitions against the larger sphere. Just like, I am sure, we would've, with KETOG, Rose, or whoever. But if no coalition work is that is really how you think multispheres should operate, then this "You didn't need them. You wanted them. You would have been plenty fine and still would have outnumbered us" doesn't even need to be said, as you plainly disagree on the principles of multispheres. 

I never said that and I'd appreciate it if you stopped putting words into my mouth as you've done so several times already. If you're going to continue to do that and dismiss my points out of hand based on arguments I never made instead of actually addressing what I'm saying, I think this conversation has run its course.

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 2

BrOQBND.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Orcinus Orca said:

We are arguing about the principles about multispheres, so I am not quite preaching about anything.

 

12 hours ago, Orcinus Orca said:

I am one of the most vocal proponents of the multisphere idea

I'll admit that my word selection isn't always on point. But I don't pretend to not have said something that is found in the page prior. Or ignore inconvenient answers as to my statements as "Well I don't speak to every Joe". Among other things.

I'm unsure how you mean me to take that seriously when it's coated in such flippant sarcasm. In reality, you don't. But being genuine on what I'm about to say, and going beyond just this specific thing; if it seems like you're about to crash headfirst into a wall, pull over and relax for a bit. It's better for everyone involved.

With that said, I've said the extent I had to elaborate in this matter, so I'm leaving it at this. Good luck Rebs.

 
G3.gif.d8066d8dc749ad2d0835fe69095fa73b.gif
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours 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". 

 

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?

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

What would make sense

eOUiZkC.png

 

What we have now

JGwwLE4.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Smith said:

It was a legitimate business!

Other people more important than me would need to address any logs but if leadership on your side admitted the bolded part talks might go better. As is we are using the same CB SRD and others in HM were fine going along with a year ago against BK but now suddenly it's not good enough.

Instead the same people are rushing to shift the focus on how we prempted and thus attacked first. It makes it difficult to believe your side is actually engaging in good faith especially when there have been other people in government positions on your side making simulatenous arguments like "this was the most fair the war could have been". which are provably wrong. 

You guys posted logs from Sphinx saying our bloc, which has no affiliation with Sphinx beyond rolling him 3 months ago, as a CB to attack our bloc, then also list some cryptic logs which you refuse to share, and you ask why we find that suspect?  Now I was gracious enough to admit we discussed attacking you about a month ago, but like many talks about a war it never ended up going anywhere. 


So you guys got paranoid about everyone coming for you, so you milled up and forced action from the 3 other blocks to protect ourselves against you.  I would call that a self fulfilling prophecy.   Also thanks I guess? you made a war that was never going to happen happen.

 

  • Like 3
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Micchan said:

What would make sense

eOUiZkC.png

 

What we have now

JGwwLE4.png

 

Slight problem here is that Swamp would never have gotten involved if Quack (or a part of anyway) didn't first attack HM and tCW. From everything I have read, a -lot- of people were feeling that there had to be a way to defend against Quack and what people came up with is that a -defensive- Coalition had to be formed in order to make that happen. So it happened. As Grumpy just pointed out, there was a little talk about going after Quack, but it never went anywhere. What did go somewhere was the fear that if a proper defensive Coalition wasn't created, Quack would just roll over whoever they wanted. So the defensive Coalition was put in place. Then Quack attacked and, well, you get what we have here.

 

This isn't the end of the story, though. I for one just want this global war to end. What can I say, I started out in The Fighting Pacifists for a reason and while I'm no longer there, I'm still in the Swamp and from everything I've seen about them, they are all about defense, not offense. Now, let's consider- you have a bunch of pacifist types who feel backed up in a corner. Ofcourse they'll fight. You know what they'd much rather do though? Stop fighting. There's a reason Swamp looks so grumpy- they don't fight for the glory, they fight when it seems they have no other alternative. Why not reach out a little in the direction of peace?

Edited by Phoenyx
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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