Jump to content

A Snake's Tale: Surrender, Booze, and Peace


Benfro
 Share

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, Adrienne said:

None of that has anything to do with my point that it's funny you find 4 months for a 6 week war long but apparently not 3 months for a 10 day conflict.... nor do I understand what "pain" it is you claim I'm feeling.

One of those NAPs doesn't involve every major player in the game, and its not a blanket NAP like this one is, it was just a hey Swamp and HM wont fight with TCW for the next 3 months.  So we could have still had say Rose and HM fight, or Swamp and TCW could have fought Quack.  Now the only one that can fight for the next 4 months are the raiders, and not even all of them, because a few of the raiding alliances are also bound by the 4 month NAP.   Does that help explain why I personally hate the 4 month NAP?

 

Edited by Sweeeeet Ronny D
grammer is hard
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Sweeeeet Ronny D said:

One of those NAPs doesn't involve every major player in the game, and its not a blanket NAP like this one is, it was just a hey Swamp and HM wont hit TCW for the next 3 months.  So we could have still had say Rose and HM fight, or Swamp and TCW could have fought Quack.  Now the only one that can fight for the next 4 months is the raiders, and not even all of them, because a few of the raiding alliances are also bound by the 4 month NAP.   Does that help explain why I personally hate the 4 month NAP?

So your issue isn't the length, it's that combined with who all is covered by it because of this war. Gotcha.

BrOQBND.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Sweeeeet Ronny D said:

No the length sucks too, because we have just set the game to easy mode for the next 4 months, which I personally find disappointing.

Sorry for not being eager to let you plan a coalition to bang us again in 2 months for bEiNg ToO bIg

  • Upvote 2

 

os9LcJK.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Phoenyx said:

 

Which -seemed- to show a clear and present threat. As mentioned elsewhere, fine, you felt threatened, you acted on it, we had this global war, it's done. But now that the dust is settling, perhaps it's time to take a look at that intel again, see if it may not have been as reliable as you thought it was.

No. Because it is not relevant now.

Quack feels the CB was valid.
You will remain intransigent in your belief that it was not.

That is not the point I was raising, making or addressing.

It wasn't Quack that decided to make this conflict bipolar.
It wasn't Quack that built a hegemony ahead of the war.
Quack declared war on the people who appeared to be a threat.
And the hegemony was revealed by the counters.

How the war began, or however else it could have begun, the secret treaties ensured that it was always going to be a 1 vs 1, hegemony vs Quack conflict rather than the implied 3 vs 1 bloc war that better suits your side's narrative.

Whatever you personally happen to think of the Quack's CB is entirely beside the point in this matter.

  • Upvote 3

<~Sval[OWR]> I am your father.
<+Curufinwe> Can confirm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Sval said:

No. Because it is not relevant now.

Quack feels the CB was valid.
You will remain intransigent in your belief that it was not.

That is not the point I was raising, making or addressing.

 

I don't agree that it's not relevant- your side and mine are still arguing over how things started, I think that speaks for itself. As to your other points, not something I'm all that interested in, other than to say that, like Quack, our side felt threatened, felt it would be best to group up to meet said threat and so that's what happened. Now we all have 4 months to build up and (hopefully) be a little more careful about getting into large wars based on questionable information. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Prefonteen said:

Sorry for not being eager to let you plan a coalition to bang us again in 2 months for bEiNg ToO bIg

See quote above for example of paranoia I was referencing earlier.

Note: I like that pheonyx thinks he is part of this conversation but most of it is above him.

Edited by Sweeeeet Ronny D
  • Haha 2
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Sweeeeet Ronny D said:

See quote above for example of paranoia I was referencing earlier.

Note: I like that pheonyx thinks he is part of this conversation but most of it is above him.

 

Come on Ronny, what's so complicated about the basic gist of all of this? Quack thought TCW/HM/Swamp wanted to attack them, you concede that you had talked about it for a bit but that's as far as it went, they refuse to even consider this possibility, instead willing to believe that Boyce is telling the truth and everyone else is lying. What's not to get?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Prefonteen said:

Sorry for not being eager to let you plan a coalition to bang us again in 2 months for bEiNg ToO bIg

Come on now, seriously? You could have planned a coalition with us to roll [redacted]! If you listened to most of our side you'd realize that this war is not something most of NPC wants to repeat. It was a boring, one sided war. The only redeeming quality is the juicy arguments y'all get to have about who's the hegemon and who's got a good CB. 

  • Haha 1

Do you guys know how to edit the signature field? I can't figure out where it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Phoenyx said:

As to your other points, not something I'm all that interested in,

I know. Hence the epic non sequitur that was your inital reply to me.

<~Sval[OWR]> I am your father.
<+Curufinwe> Can confirm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Sweeeeet Ronny D said:

One of those NAPs doesn't involve every major player in the game, and its not a blanket NAP like this one is, it was just a hey Swamp and HM wont fight with TCW for the next 3 months.

I tend to agree, which is why @Benfro was at one point specifically requesting a Quack-only NAP.  We had taken the damages, and we needed the diplomatic cover to assess or perhaps reassess our FA position.  After KF, you guys experienced what it's like on the other side of a dogpile, and it's not always pretty.  Having a few extra months to figure thing out and mend relations for Quack is frankly a good thing if you want to avoid a rote repeat.  However, Ben had to drop that point, despite my insistence, because of your side's requests to that effect and focus on negotiating only on the length.

 

2 hours ago, Sweeeeet Ronny D said:

After you? we literally tried to form a bloc with you after NPOLT, you said no and decided to make a super bloc with tS instead, because you thought it would be safer for TKR.  (one if we did form, it would have made all the blocs much more equal, and swamp would have been the big dog on campus and not you guys)...

Given my M.O., this is a bit unfair.  Our choices have never been about security.  We strongly considered a few different options after NPOLT.  One of which was G/G, but post-KF we're always wary of the upper tier consolidation argument.  We've been told we're a hegemony no matter what we do for more than 2 years now, so we're a bit sensitive to returning to a place where we've been called a hegemon.  Although I will contend that almost all claims (absent Opus Dei and maybe 2018 EMC) of hegemony are more rhetoric than reality and that in our case it would've been unfounded too, it was still a concern.  

At the time, Quack was weaker/smaller than TcWsphere, so our choice to stick with T$ wasn't a super bloc nor did we consider that any more hegemonic than tying with G/G.  When TcW started to fail, internal pressure ratcheted up to downsize Quack a bit to match the next strongest spheres.  This manifested in a few cuts notably Aurora and determinations about some peripheries.  Then, Swamp formed and grew enough that we felt somewhat satisfied with the cuts as our sizes were comparable although there still was an informal end to any non-passive growth. 

I'll also note that throughout this period, we received credible offers from a bunch of different alliances to leave T$.  The reason we haven't is because we've found an ally we trust and like to work with.  That's very valuable to us as our FA approach is entirely focused on relationships.  There was no overriding reason in the meta, so it made sense to stick with Quack.  

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Phoenyx said:

I don't agree that it's not relevant- your side and mine are still arguing over how things started, I think that speaks for itself.

We have a clear winner, allies honored agreements, members followed orders, and now everyone has a clearer view of the overall board. It doesn't even need to be explained to those paying attention. And we all got to have fun.

These are the only things that are relevant now.

Now I'll go back to lurking and let the adults get back to talking. Pardon my interruption folks.

 

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Cooper_ said:

I tend to agree, which is why @Benfro was at one point specifically requesting a Quack-only NAP.  We had taken the damages, and we needed the diplomatic cover to assess or perhaps reassess our FA position.  After KF, you guys experienced what it's like on the other side of a dogpile, and it's not always pretty.  Having a few extra months to figure thing out and mend relations for Quack is frankly a good thing if you want to avoid a rote repeat.  However, Ben had to drop that point, despite my insistence, because of your side's requests to that effect and focus on negotiating only on the length.

TI and TFP took the dive on wishful thinking. They didn't sit back and use excuses as to why they couldn't do this or that, they just did it. They were starting out fresh with no sure things or big players coming to help them. Yet, I'm supposed to believe that the most competent, experienced bloc in the game couldn't get it together in three months or less? Sounds like I have more faith in your abilities than you do. 

The NAP had to be a blanket. If it wasn't than you guys would of had way too much of an advantage with little reason to work towards mending bridges or changing direction. All you would do is sit back and watch us run into each other than clap someone down the road. Why would I think that? Simply because that is what I would do. People are like water and will always take the easiest route, its no fault of our own just nature. At least this way Swamp gets the chance to fix their train wreck, Tyrion and Harry can mold the bloc of their dreams and Quack can find your smile again. Not happy about it but it is what it is and I agreed to it. 

We all share the blame for the war since each of us had our roles to play ensuring it would happen, be it Hedge agreeing to defend Swamp or elements of Quack's attitude towards the other blocs. Without all the factors we wouldn't have lead up to where we are. I'm not going to argue the CB since frankly, CB's are perspective. Sphinx's resignation and Boyce's desire to see CotL get smoked allowed you to see what you wanted and you rolled with it. Thats perfectly acceptable since with the shoe on the other foot I'd have went for it no differently.

Problem is, now we have to move on and that means coming to an understanding. People say they need trust but trust doesn't exist. We need to listen, reflect and act upon the concerns or else we will be back here again wasting our time yelling at walls. Sorry if that sounds preachy but thats my after school special moment. 

Phoenyx don't even waste your time quoting me. I'm not interested in getting sucked into the vortex my man. 

 

Edited by Leftbehind
Mobile ugh
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Keegoz said:

I am yet to see t$ claim any responsibility for what happened here. The mere fact that your first thing to do was to jump to <insert Quack talking points> pretty much proves that. The shocking part here is that our effort to get people to rally against you was not hard. We didn't need any 'secret treaties' to do it. If you don't believe that's a sign that perhaps you are doing something wrong, than keep your current course. 

Uncertain what t$ or anyone here should be "claiming responsibility" for, other than I guess gRoWiNg tOo biG

Worst Poster Ever (2011)
zapdos.jpg.28ab9e9c974c8dc4fc52998d0e3adf14.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Prefonteen said:

Sorry for not being eager to let you plan a coalition to bang us again in 4 months for bEiNg ToO bIg

 

Edited by Critters

image.jpg1_zpszukhjtut.jpg

 

The Redneck Caliphate of Forrest's Critters

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Shiho Nishizumi said:

I SAW THE ORIGINAL.

No it doesn't automatically strike when you use the tildes even though I wish it did.

I’m not as clever as I’d like to be typing this on my phone

Edited by Critters

image.jpg1_zpszukhjtut.jpg

 

The Redneck Caliphate of Forrest's Critters

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Leftbehind said:

TI and TFP took the dive on wishful thinking. They didn't sit back and use excuses as to why they couldn't do this or that, they just did it. They were starting out fresh with no sure things or big players coming to help them. Yet, I'm supposed to believe that the most competent, experienced bloc in the game couldn't get it together in three months or less? Sounds like I have more faith in your abilities than you do. 

Excuses?  I might be reading this wrong, but poking a jab at my alliance for not taking risks is laughable.  Since early 2018, we've been choosing the unsafe options.  Although you won't ever find him around anymore, it was TCL who first wanted to end EMC.  Then after KF, we joined Chaos dropping all of our allies and forming an isolated small sphere.  During NPOLT, we signed TI, a new alliance without much background, and T$, an alliance we felt betrayed by and who we felt was vacillating on enabling NPO.  None of our choices were easy.  All of them were risky.  

Also, TI and TFP aren't alienated from most of Orbis at the moment.  That's a poor comparison.  I can further go into how I've think CoTL hasn't been at risk at any point in the post-NPOLT period, but that wouldn't be productive.

3 hours ago, Leftbehind said:

The NAP had to be a blanket. If it wasn't than you guys would of had way too much of an advantage with little reason to work towards mending bridges or changing direction. All you would do is sit back and watch us run into each other than clap someone down the road.

That's only true if you assume bipolarity, which is your assumption not mine.  

Yes, I fully hoped that some of NPC would go to war with each other because that's exactly what we need to see happen given the secret treaties.  We don't have a good reason to trust that you've broken your secret ties.  Even if you have, what's to say they won't be brought up again when it's convenient?  That's the problem with operating in the dark without transparency.  There's no trust.  

Maybe that means that Quack or Post-Quack elements get the chance to roll one of the post-NPC spheres, but that's a hypothetical and that's also ok.  No matter what side I'm on, I'd like to see the guy who just got rolled to pick himself up and win the next one.  That's what the meta is about, and it's the Orbis I hope to see.  No one "wins," but everyone is eventually a victor AND a loser if they play the game well.  

4 hours ago, Leftbehind said:

We all share the blame for the war since each of us had our roles to play ensuring it would happen, be it Hedge agreeing to defend Swamp or elements of Quack's attitude towards the other blocs. Without all the factors we wouldn't have lead up to where we are. I'm not going to argue the CB since frankly, CB's are perspective. Sphinx's resignation and Boyce's desire to see CotL get smoked allowed you to see what you wanted and you rolled with it. Thats perfectly acceptable since with the shoe on the other foot I'd have went for it no differently.

This is a false equivalency couched into a more agreeable 'coming-together' statement to seem reasonable.  If we're going to put this war down to Sphinx and Boyce plotting, Occam's Razor wants a word about Hedge's anti-Quack rhetoric since day 1.  I'll agree that there's blame to go around, but I won't welcome conspiracies on clearly established truths.

4 hours ago, Leftbehind said:

Problem is, now we have to move on and that means coming to an understanding. People say they need trust but trust doesn't exist. We need to listen, reflect and act upon the concerns or else we will be back here again wasting our time yelling at walls. Sorry if that sounds preachy but thats my after school special moment. 

My understanding is that secret treaties are categorically invalid at least that was what your own coalition's constituents (and your own government) told my alliance during KF for treaties that were never even activated.  If we're to move on, this is the point that needs to be acknowledged and addressed.  It's likely your words won't move the needle enough, so I'll look towards your actions.  

  • Upvote 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Forming a 1,000 man death squad is not a risk. Signing a new but large alliance and t$ in the wake of NPOLT (with rose meant to be in it too) with the expectation of a united front against IQ later, was not a risk. There was nothing risky about it, the entire POINT of that was to ELIMINATE as much as risk as possible by ensuring it would be everyone v IQ from day 1 the next time around.

If you feel CoTL hasn't been at risk sicne the NAP, guess what - unlike you that's not from having 1,000 people in our sphere backing us up. That's from actually doing the kind of FA leg work you didn't. You might say you did, your opponents seem to disagree, I'm inclined to take their decision making and actions as an accurate indication that they feel you didn't.

Paranoia and denial over your own failure in FA to properly understand and anticipate the viewpoints and concerns of others, does not mean there's a cabal of secret treaties against you. I'm struggling real hard not to pull out the obvious real world comparison because I know I shouldn't, but you people are making that very difficult.

You quoted some leaked HM logs but conveniently left the ones out about us literally talking about hitting Rose, as if there's never been friction anywhere else, as if you correctly assessing the world and downsizing prior to the war would not have seen, in high likelihood, two concurrent globals at once. 

No problem is one sided, there are multiple faults, it's true. But even saying that all it takes for that to remain true is to be 99.9% one's fault and 0.1 the other. If you're lucky you're running maybe an 85 here. 

 

Anyway, whole world's made it's opinion and concerns very obvious now. Your options are to continue challenging my restraint on IRL comparisons and deny reality and spin conspiracies, or accept reality and respond accordingly to it. If you deny reality I know where most people put their bets on that leading. Accept it, and we get a pandora's box of a future. Up to you now, swamp hacked itself apart, balls in your court. @Cooper_

That's a wrap to this 8 pages of a surrender thread for me lmao.

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

10 hours ago, Keegoz said:

I don't really see how this shows anything?

Are you using the "play dumb" FA tactic now? That's beneath you.

 

You know it shows plenty.

1. Precedent. Rose and Swamp worked together (or rather certain aspects were "controlled" by them). You tied TI knowing this. 

2. Gives more legitimacy to our suspicions that this backroom rub and tug has been going on for much longer than our militarization. 

3. Makes your "Quack man bad Quack man smart and big and threat argument look like a joke. Please. Rose, one of the oldest and most well established alliances had their hands all over the strings of certain parties in Swamp and you.. somehow saw that as less of a threat than big bad Sphinx and his outstanding military reputation? That leads me to point

4. All this adds up quite nicely, if I'm honest. With your history with Rose in mind, you ignoring their attempts to control another sphere makes sense. Attacking tCW because you knew Sphinx would fold and follow whatever you/whoever was put in charge of him said, smart play. At that point you're already in control of/friendly with/bedding more than half the game. Next, you sow distrust (PARTISAN MAN EVIL SCHEMER comes to mind) while refusing to actually substantiate it with any evidence, and make Quack the big bad mutual enemy.

 

I knew you had an affinity for stealthy backrubs in the darkness of night, but you've impressed me this time. Demonize us for "ruining minispheres" all you like, but I'd take a look at your actions first. Unless you want to keep playing dumb, of course.

  • Upvote 5

thalmorcommie.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Cooper_ said:

I tend to agree, which is why  1 @Benfro was at one point specifically requesting a Quack-only NAP.  We had taken the damages, and we needed the diplomatic cover to assess or perhaps reassess our FA position.  After KF, you guys experienced what it's like on the other side of a dogpile, and it's not always pretty.  Having a few extra months to figure thing out and mend relations for Quack is frankly a good thing if you want to avoid a rote repeat.  However, Ben had to drop that point, despite my insistence, because of your side's requests to that effect and focus on negotiating only on the length.

 

Given my M.O., this is a bit unfair.  Our choices have never been about security.  We strongly considered a few different options after NPOLT.  One of which was G/G, but post-KF we're always wary of the upper tier consolidation argument.  2  We've been told we're a hegemony no matter what we do for more than 2 years now, so we're a bit sensitive to returning to a place where we've been called a hegemon.  Although I will contend that almost all claims (absent Opus Dei and maybe 2018 EMC) of hegemony are more rhetoric than reality and that in our case it would've been unfounded too, it was still a concern.  

3. At the time, Quack was weaker/smaller than TcWsphere, so our choice to stick with T$ wasn't a super bloc nor did we consider that any more hegemonic than tying with G/G.  When TcW started to fail, internal pressure ratcheted up to downsize Quack a bit to match the next strongest spheres.  This manifested in a few cuts notably Aurora and determinations about some peripheries.  Then, Swamp formed and grew enough that we felt somewhat satisfied with the cuts as our sizes were comparable although there still was an informal end to any non-passive growth. 

I'll also note that throughout this period, we received credible offers from a bunch of different alliances to leave T$.  4. The reason we haven't is because we've found an ally we trust and like to work with.  That's very valuable to us as our FA approach is entirely focused on relationships.  There was no overriding reason in the meta, so it made sense to stick with Quack.  

For the record I have no idea how to multiquote because computers are hard.

1. Why would we ever go for a Quack only nap?  You realize you lost the war right?  It really seems like you guys don't realize this, (It's why I insisted on the surrender document reference your surrender, since the original draft didn't) why would we allow you to attack us, then give you months to rebuild without any worry about getting attacked while the rest of us are vulnerable to attack, in what world does that make sense? 
It's interesting that you bring up Post Knightfall, when you guys dropped us and we had to scramble and look for new allies, you remember we all managed to completely revamp our FA without a NAP right?  Didn't need 6 months/4 months/3 months or even 1 day of a NAP, we did it with the possibility that we could be hit at any time.  You don't need a NAP to revamp your FA.  The fact that you guys had the balls to ask for a 6 month one sided nap for your bloc is delusional, honestly I believe Quack was taking advantage of our kindness during the peace process by dragging out negotiations over the length of a completely unnecessary NAP.

2. You aren't the victims here, give it a break, Post Knightfall any talk of TKR being hedgemonic was laughable, Pre Knightfall, we were, I say we where allies then, TKR's sphere was the premier world power for years at the time.  I know you want to cry it loud and proud across the world that Quack is the victim in this war, but outside the hallowed halls of Quack, no one is buying it.  Maybe you do it to help your internals, us against the world is a strong message for your members to rally around, but everyone else is rolling their eyes.

3. Again are you guys delusional?  When two of the top 5 alliances in the game ally each other, (I think it was top 3 at the time but ill give you the benefit of doubt here, considering one of those alliances was TCW)  You automatically became the big dog on campus.  I remember back then when we were deciding what to do with our FA, we were like there is no way TKR and tS team up (and I believe you were trying to pull in TI as well), they have to realize that they will be so much stronger than everyone else.  It was one of the reasons G/G didn't join tS's sphere at the time, because it would have been unfair to have all that upper tier power consolidated in one spot.  Your FA moves broadcasted the message that tS/TKR are good with smaller spheres as long as they are the biggest and strongest out of all of them.  That may not have been your intention (which i think is generous, because I think it was) but every other alliance and or bloc that is heavily involved in world politics knew it.
 

4  Yeah cool, I get it, its why Grumpy has been allied to Guardian for so long, I pay Memph and Vanek cash under the table every month and we get to stay friends.  I am not here to tell you who you can and cannot be allied to, but just like I understand that the combined upper tier power of Grumpy and Guardian is a threat to everyone else and that makes us a target.  You have too many experienced players working with you to not know that there are consequences to having tS's sphere of allies and TKR's sphere of allies join together.  This is why its so laughable when you try to play the victim.  You know the only way you guys ever lose a war is if most if not all of the smaller spheres put aside their own agendas and actually come together to attack you which is pretty damn difficult to do, and why it didn't happen until you forced us all to do it when you guys militarized.

 

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Sweeeeet Ronny D said:

honestly I believe Quack was taking advantage of our kindness during the peace process by dragging out negotiations over the length of a completely unnecessary NAP.

I've noticed that you've been portraying yourselves as a sort of benevolent figure over the timing of the first feelers, and terms themselves.

The former is anything but. The timing coincided with the ballpark where we largely maxed out on the damage taken, chiefly on infra but also loot petering out. There's nothing kind in wanting to keep the damage dealt to a maximum and sustained to a minimum. It is purely driven by self interest. To clarify, I am not faulting the attempt at it (it's a rational motivation), but to portray it as being anything but driven by one's own interest is laughable.

As for the terms themselves; yes and no. It's very much true that more stuff could have been added. It's also true that these set precedents which can very well be held against you in the future if the situation so materializes. That, combined with the desire to wrap things up as quickly as possible for the reason I mentioned in the paragraph above, are reasons which are pragmatic and responding to one's own interests, rather than some notion of benevolence. To reiterate, those are rationales which make complete sense, but that certainly have nothing to do with this whole idea of "Oh we were just being benevolent/kind".

Edited by Shiho Nishizumi
  • Upvote 4
 
G3.gif.d8066d8dc749ad2d0835fe69095fa73b.gif
Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Dionysus said:

Are you using the "play dumb" FA tactic now? That's beneath you.

 

You know it shows plenty.

1. Precedent. Rose and Swamp worked together (or rather certain aspects were "controlled" by them). You tied TI knowing this. 

2. Gives more legitimacy to our suspicions that this backroom rub and tug has been going on for much longer than our militarization. 

3. Makes your "Quack man bad Quack man smart and big and threat argument look like a joke. Please. Rose, one of the oldest and most well established alliances had their hands all over the strings of certain parties in Swamp and you.. somehow saw that as less of a threat than big bad Sphinx and his outstanding military reputation? That leads me to point

4. All this adds up quite nicely, if I'm honest. With your history with Rose in mind, you ignoring their attempts to control another sphere makes sense. Attacking tCW because you knew Sphinx would fold and follow whatever you/whoever was put in charge of him said, smart play. At that point you're already in control of/friendly with/bedding more than half the game. Next, you sow distrust (PARTISAN MAN EVIL SCHEMER comes to mind) while refusing to actually substantiate it with any evidence, and make Quack the big bad mutual enemy.

 

I knew you had an affinity for stealthy backrubs in the darkness of night, but you've impressed me this time. Demonize us for "ruining minispheres" all you like, but I'd take a look at your actions first. Unless you want to keep playing dumb, of course.

Man I wish we were this good at the game, but unfortunately not everything is about you boys, you sound like old BK thinking Ketogg fought Chaos for a month as an excuse to hit them. 

Buddy, I know you are only 850 days old, but yeah Partisan has a long history of being an evil schemer.   Hell back in the first year of PnW he was almost kicked out of his position as leader of tS for getting caught scheming and probably would have been if Impero wasn't such a cocky dick.  I have been allied to him, I have brainstormed evil schemes with him. (it's actually quite fun, I think its the best part of being allied to him to be honest)

 

6 minutes ago, Shiho Nishizumi said:

I've noticed that you've been portraying yourselves as a sort of benevolent figure over the timing of the first feelers, and terms themselves.

The former is anything but. The timing coincided with the ballpark where we largely maxed out on the damage taken, chiefly on infra but also loot petering out. There's nothing benign in wanting to keep the damage dealt to a maximum and sustained to a minimum. It is purely driven by self interest. To clarify, I am not faulting the attempt at it (it's a rational motivation), but to portray it as being anything but driven by one's own interest is laughable.

As for the terms themselves; yes and no. It's very much true that more stuff could have been added. It's also true that these set precedents which can very well be held against you in the future if the situation so materializes. That, combined with the desire to wrap things up as quickly as possible for the reason I mentioned in the paragraph above, are reasons which are pragmatic and responding to one's own interests, rather than some notion of benevolence. To reiterate, those are rationales which make complete sense, but that certainly have nothing to do with this whole idea of "Oh we were just being benevolent/kind".

So in the future if I attack you and you beat me in a war, please offer me peace after 3 weeks and make the terms that I have to surrender and you offer me a 3 month nap (I will also probably be ok with 0 nap).  Sounds like a terrible precedent to be used against me. 

I guess it is my fault that we tried to put into practice what we had been trying to do for over 1-2 years now, shorter more frequent wars, without the toxicity.

Edited by Sweeeeet Ronny D
  • Upvote 2
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.