Jump to content

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


Benfro
 Share

Recommended Posts

3 hours 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.

You literally showed a log that proceeded me outlining why I wanted to sign TI over other alliances because I was worried about Rose's influence. One that was then cancelled once tCW was dealt with. Boyce and this, you really are struggling to keep this cb afloat.

As for the rest, I'm truly glad we're back to this forum being wild conspiracy theories with no evidence. Don't forget your tinfoil hat friend.

Let's call this for what it is. A poor excuse and distraction from your FA failings and a cb that is being made up on the run. You'd rather blame others and make up wild stories than accept you made mistakes. If you don't think you've made any mistakes though, continue on your current course.

  • Haha 2
  • Upvote 4

[11:52 PM] Prefontaine: But Keegoz is actually bad. [11:52 PM] Prefontaine: He's my favorite bad leader though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Keegoz said:

You literally showed a log that proceeded me outlining why I wanted to sign TI over other alliances because I was worried about Rose's influence. One that was then cancelled once tCW was dealt with. Boyce and this, you really are struggling to keep this cb afloat.

And then continued to have a secret treaty with them afterwards, let's not skip over that. We're not struggling to keep our CB afloat in the slightest. You lot have doing it pretty well for us all throughout this conflict and our chats in private tbh. The ties between the three spheres have been confirmed by your side so you can pretend you dropped TI if you want but considering you guys have confirmed that relationship continued to exist afterwards, it doesn't mean much.

11 minutes ago, Keegoz said:

As for the rest, I'm truly glad we're back to this forum being wild conspiracy theories with no evidence. Don't forget your tinfoil hat friend.

Let's call this for what it is. A poor excuse and distraction from your FA failings and a cb that is being made up on the run. You'd rather blame others and make up wild stories than accept you made mistakes. If you don't think you've made any mistakes though, continue on your current course.

> I'm going to distract from the fact we built up a network of secret treaties by dismissing everything as conspiracy theories and paranoia and then reiterate my stance that it's all your fault, my coalition is perfect and faultless and justified.

BrOQBND.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Prefonteen said:

It's similarly shitty to pretend you did not spin up a shitty hEgEmOnY narrative back in february (and kept it up for months in backchannels, spilling over into public occasionally), deliberately misrepresented quack's size in the graphs you publicized to anyone who wanted to listen (Pantheon a quack ally? Really?) and maintained under-the-table agreements against us, while simultaneously announcing that your support this war was solely down to quack's behavior.

 

Sorry Prefonteen, but I think this is the key thing that you get so very wrong. I'm reminded of a post from Ronny you directed me to in what seems like ages ago, wherein Ronny says the words that your side later turned into an ad:

  

On 11/2/2020 at 9:56 AM, Sweeeeet Ronny D said:

I can tell you straight up what has been going on from Grumpy's point of view.  Swamp came to HM about a month ago, asking about hitting you guys, and as the leader of Grumpy, I said i would only be on board if Rose was also on board, and Rose said no, so Grumpy was out.

 

While seemingly ignoring everything he said after it. I mean, immediately after the quote turned ad, Ronny deflates that balloon pretty quick: 

  

On 11/2/2020 at 9:56 AM, Sweeeeet Ronny D said:

After about a week, I assumed the plan died since I didnt hear anything more about it.  

 

And perhaps more importantly, Ronny making it clear that these "under the table agreements" you seem to think were around long before your side initiated this global war were in fact only arrived at very shortly before the war and happened precisely because HM and the rest of the spheres saw that you were militarizing and no one wanted to get dogpiled:

 

  

On 11/2/2020 at 9:56 AM, Sweeeeet Ronny D said:

Last week Quack militarized out of the blue, so we militarized and started talking to the other blocs, because we didn't know what they were doing or who they were planning to hit. Swamp and HM basically agreed that if one of us gets hit, we will help the other one because we cant let the strongest bloc in the game start steamrolling the smaller blocs, and we were waiting to see if Rose would also agree.  From what I understand Rose didn't jump on the bandwagon till a few hours before you guys attacked on Friday.  If we were all on board from the get go, we wouldn't have spend the 2 hours before you attacked frantically trying to decide how we wanted to handle you guys. 

 

 

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

7 minutes ago, Phoenyx said:

 

Sorry Prefonteen, but I think this is the key thing that you get so very wrong. I'm reminded of a post from Ronny you directed me to in what seems like ages ago, wherein Ronny says the words that your side later turned into an ad:

  

 

While seemingly ignoring everything he said after it. I mean, immediately after the quote turned ad, Ronny deflates that balloon pretty quick: 

  

He doesn't deflate the balloon. The admission in itself stands, because it directly contradicted the standing narrative of his coalition. 

He has also reaffirmed multiple times, even when "walking it back", that he did state that he wouldn't join a war on us unless rose is in. That's by definition a greenlight for whomever he spoke to to get rose, and then circle back knowing that ronny is in. It can also (in backchannels) be used to entice rose.

So no, I haven't ignored anything. I've explained these things to you before, but you were too occupied with your "investigation" to actually investigate our stance. 

7 minutes ago, Phoenyx said:

 

And perhaps more importantly, Ronny making it clear that these "under the table agreements" you seem to think were around long before your side initiated this global war were in fact only arrived at very shortly before the war and happened precisely because HM and the rest of the spheres saw that you were militarizing and no one wanted to get dogpiled:

 

  

 

 

Right, and that's either a direct lie, or Ronny is not up to speed on the things that have occurred in backchannels. Multiple leaders have both in private and in public corrobated these things.

Edited by Prefonteen

 

os9LcJK.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Prefonteen said:

He doesn't deflate the balloon. The admission in itself stands, because it directly contradicted the standing narrative of his coalition. 

 

 

I still think he deflated the balloon because he makes it clear that this alleged plan on Swamp's part, had it ever actually existed and not been a misinterpretation on Ronnie's part, apparently died out soon after its creation.

 

9 minutes ago, Prefonteen said:

He has also reaffirmed multiple times, even when "walking it back", that he did state that he wouldn't join a war on us unless rose is in. That's by definition a greenlight for whomever he spoke to to get rose, and then circle back knowing that ronny is in. It can also (in backchannels) be used to entice rose.

 

 

I do agree with you on that point. But it's one thing to say "I'd be willing to go to war with Quack on these conditions" and quite another to actually start planning to go to war with Quack.

 

  

9 minutes ago, Prefonteen said:
17 minutes ago, Phoenyx said:

And perhaps more importantly, Ronny making it clear that these "under the table agreements" you seem to think were around long before your side initiated this global war were in fact only arrived at very shortly before the war and happened precisely because HM and the rest of the spheres saw that you were militarizing and no one wanted to get dogpiled:

 

Right, and that's either a direct lie, or Ronny is not up to speed on the things that have occurred in backchannels. Multiple leaders have both in private and in public corrobated these things.

 

I see that you have deleted this last part from your previous post. Not sure what that means. I'll just proceed as if you still believe it even though it's no longer in said previous post and respond to it accordingly. I'm glad that you are at least acknowledging a possibility that doesn't involve Ronny lying. As with you, I have never found a point in time where I found Ronny to be trying to deceive. Anyway, I'd certainly welcome seeing any of this evidence against what Ronnie stated.

 

 

Edited by Phoenyx
Update due to deletion in post I'm responding to
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Phoenyx said:

 

 

I still think he deflated the balloon because he makes it clear that this alleged plan on Swamp's part, had it ever actually existed and not been a misinterpretation on Ronnie's part, apparently died out soon after its creation.

 




You can *at best* infer that we can't know if it existed. The public statements of tyrion etc. are not a credible source due to the vested interest they have in any such information if it exists not coming to light. We've been over this.

What we do have is the knowledge that an approach was made, the postfacto admissions to deals having been in place, the multi-month period of an anti-quack narrative being built on the back of false metrics (among other things), multiple contradictions among swamp leaders etc. etc.

Combining all that paints a pretty clear picture. You've simply chosen to prioritize the words of your leaders over any of that.

28 minutes ago, Phoenyx said:

 

I do agree with you on that point. But it's one thing to say "I'd be willing to go to war with Quack on these conditions" and quite another to actually start planning to go to war with Quack.

 

  

It really isn't in politics in these games though. Those kinds of conversations are the definition of coalition building. It's where aggressive wars begin, and hence, why it signals aggressive intent.

Quote

I see that you have deleted this last part from your previous post. Not sure what that means. I'll just proceed as if you still believe it even though it's no longer in said previous post and respond to it accordingly. I'm glad that you are at least acknowledging a possibility that doesn't involve Ronny lying. As with you, I have never found a point in time where I found Ronny to be trying to deceive. Anyway, I'd certainly welcome seeing any of this evidence against what Ronnie stated.

 

 

image.png.f38c4a7af82d08df887b1b7a9de66923.png

I don't know what I supposedly deleted? It's there.

It's literally been admitted lmfao.- Swamp admitted to having an agreement in place with HM which preceeded our militarization by *at least* a month, and swamp was previously directly allied to HM. Similarly, The keegoz (prominent ex-rose leader and Cotl/HM gov at the time iirc, who has a history of multiple years working with and for Rose behind the scenes) quote which adam posted the other day suggest rose-swamp movements, albeit more subterfuge. Then we've had ASM corrobate early on in the war that Rose had a deal with swamp in place. Add to that the whole Ronny business you keep trying to dismiss, and you frankly are swimming in evidence suggesting a base level of preexisting coordination that essentially makes this war an inevitability.

Quack got whiffs of it prewar, and militarized accordingly. The puzzle pieces fell in place afterward.

How we move forward is something we'll have yet to see, but there is absolutely no merit to any claims that quacks moves were anything but responsive in nature. The attempts by keegoz/aku/ronny etc. to shift the narrative away from that collusion by introducing straw-men is well.... just par for the course :).

EDIT: Oh I think I know what the confusion re: deleted part is about. I wrote my post in 2 paragraphs, then edited it and moved 1 paragraph up for readability. Afaik the content should be there.

Edited by Prefonteen
  • Upvote 2

 

os9LcJK.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Keegoz said:

You literally showed a log that proceeded me outlining why I wanted to sign TI over other alliances because I was worried about Rose's influence. One that was then cancelled once tCW was dealt with. Boyce and this, you really are struggling to keep this cb afloat.

As for the rest, I'm truly glad we're back to this forum being wild conspiracy theories with no evidence. Don't forget your tinfoil hat friend.

Let's call this for what it is. A poor excuse and distraction from your FA failings and a cb that is being made up on the run. You'd rather blame others and make up wild stories than accept you made mistakes. If you don't think you've made any mistakes though, continue on your current course.

*looks around*
*puts my hat on*

I have heard there is a mother in distress present in this location. I have come to rescue.

Why are both you and the alleged father (who I'm told is named Abbas) vehemently denying to undergo a DNA test as it pertains to this child of light, born out of wedlock?

Would you not wish for the child you have sired to have a father presence, Keegoz?

Would that child not benefit from its fatherly figure?

What about alimony support? Is he at least sending you a guilt-induced monthly check to keep the baby fed? Is he still harassing you on facebook?

I'm happy to take up your case and be your solicitor in this matter. Runaway dads are NO good. 

696969-1389, ask for office of the Attorney Drunkface. 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 3

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Prefonteen said:

  

1 hour ago, Phoenyx said:

I still think he deflated the balloon because he makes it clear that this alleged plan on Swamp's part, had it ever actually existed and not been a misinterpretation on Ronnie's part, apparently died out soon after its creation.

 

You can *at best* infer that we can't know if it existed. The public statements of tyrion etc. are not a credible source due to the vested interest they have in any such information if it exists not coming to light. We've been over this.

 

Our definitions of credibility clearly differ. I tend to believe Alliance heads who are active here to say what they believe to be true. For this discussion, this works both to your advantage and disadvantage. It works to your advantage because I've always assumed that you believe that what you are saying is true. It works to your disadvantage because I -also- believe that what -other- Alliance heads who have been active here are saying what they believe to be true. So when Tyrion and Kaz say that their Alliances had no plans to initiate a first strike against Quack, I find those statements to be quite credible, just as I would if you were to say that you had no plans to attack X sphere.

 

This doesn't mean that I wouldn't like even more corroboration, as my ongoing efforts to get someone to tell me who Ronnie's HM leader source was (with rather amusing results when Yang and Dryad managed to pull my leg on that one). But that's a sword that cuts both ways, and has gotten me to repeatedly ask you to try to find out how Boyce came to the conclusion that TCW/HM/Swamp were probably going to attack Quack in December/January. I think there is one thing we can both agree on- those in positions to help clarify the truth on all of this, namely Boyce and Ronnie's HM leader source, have not exactly been very active here since the war started. I finally made contact of sorts with Boyce, through a third party. He hadn't even heard of me, so clearly he hasn't been following the discussions here. When I passed along the thread I made with him in the title, his only response was to downvote it :-p.

 

1 hour ago, Prefonteen said:

What we do have is the knowledge that an approach was made, the postfacto admissions to deals having been in place, the multi-month period of an anti-quack narrative being built on the back of false metrics (among other things), multiple contradictions among swamp leaders etc. etc.

 

What we have is a lot of incomplete information. We have Ronny's HM leader source making an ambiguous statement:

**

Time for a chat my friends. Swamp reached out to me and told me they are talking with TCW about joining together to counter Quack's growth. They are extremely uncomfortable with the idea that allowing Quack to grow and waiting for them to magically break up is a good idea.

**

 

Immediately, questions come to mind: For starters, -who- in Swamp reached out to them? And perhaps most importantly, what did they mean when they mentioned Swamp "told [them] they are talking with TCW about joining together to counter Quack's growth?"  I felt this was so important that I actually made a thread about it:

 

  

1 hour ago, Prefonteen said:

  

1 hour ago, Phoenyx said:

I do agree with you on that point. But it's one thing to say "I'd be willing to go to war with Quack on these conditions" and quite another to actually start planning to go to war with Quack.

 

It really isn't in politics in these games though. Those kinds of conversations are the definition of coalition building. It's where aggressive wars begin, and hence, why it signals aggressive intent.

 

Saying you'd do something if certain conditions were met is not the same thing as actually doing something. If we are to believe Ronnie when he says that Rose only got on board on a -defensive- treaty hours before you guys actually attacked TCW and HM, then not only was there no offensive plans against you involving Rose, there wasn't even any -counter- plans involving Rose until hours before you guys actually attacked TCW/HM.

 

1 hour ago, Prefonteen said:

It's literally been admitted lmfao.- Swamp admitted to having an agreement in place with HM which preceeded our militarization by *at least* a month, and swamp was previously directly allied to HM.

A -counter attack- plan was acknowledged to have taken place, not a first strike plan.

 

  

1 hour ago, Prefonteen said:

Similarly, The keegoz (prominent ex-rose leader and Cotl/HM gov at the time iirc, who has a history of multiple years working with and for Rose behind the scenes) quote which adam posted the other day suggest rose-swamp movements, albeit more subterfuge.

 

I'm not familiar with this post you're referring to, link?

 

  

1 hour ago, Prefonteen said:

Then we've had ASM corrobate early on in the war that Rose had a deal with swamp in place.

 

What does ASM stand for? In any case, to the rest of your sentence, a defensive coalition in the event that Quack attacked Rose or Swamp, sure, but I've never seen any evidence that Swamp was working on a first strike plan against Quack. On the contrary, this has been strongly denied by both Tyrion and Kaz. 

 

  

1 hour ago, Prefonteen said:

How we move forward is something we'll have yet to see, but there is absolutely no merit to any claims that quacks moves were anything but responsive in nature.

 

Sure, but the question is whether you were responding to a real threat or one based on exaggerated claims and false rumours. I think you know which type most non Quack Alliances think you responded to.

 

1 hour ago, Prefonteen said:

EDIT: Oh I think I know what the confusion re: deleted part is about. I wrote my post in 2 paragraphs, then edited it and moved 1 paragraph up for readability. Afaik the content should be there.

 

Yeah, that was it.  I open multiple windows to quote various parts and then go back to my original window to paste. So in my original window, the formatting was different and I didn't see what I'd seen before, thus thought you'd deleted that part.

Edited by Phoenyx
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Redarmy said:

You're really bad at investigating if you can't figure that out

What is it with you guys and your efforts to make a conversation harder than it needs to be? Anyway, I'll play your guessing game this time around. After a bit of looking, I'm guessing it stands for Advanced Syndicalist Mechanics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Phoenyx said:

What is it with you guys and your efforts to make a conversation harder than it needs to be? Anyway, I'll play your guessing game this time around. After a bit of looking, I'm guessing it stands for Advanced Syndicalist Mechanics.

I can't say I'm not amused by the fact that determining the acronym of a top 20 alliance is depicted as a significant hurdle, here. :P An astounding step, I look forward to your op-ed on fully automated luxury gay space communism.

Fully Automated Luxury Gay Space Communism": Has the Time For Universal  Basic Income Finally Come? - Paste

  • Haha 3
xzhPlEh.png?1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Sweeeeet Ronny D said:

Honestly if an alliance is not in the top 15-16 alliances, do we really need to know who they are?

Thats fair and true for a lot of people, but you're not acting as this massive investigator would couldn't put together three letter together.

 

5 minutes ago, Kurdanak said:

I can't say I'm not amused by the fact that determining the acronym of a top 20 alliance is depicted as a significant hurdle, here. :P An astounding step, I look forward to your op-ed on fully automated luxury gay space communism.

Fully Automated Luxury Gay Space Communism": Has the Time For Universal  Basic Income Finally Come? - Paste

Yessssssss

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Sweeeeet Ronny D said:

Honestly if an alliance is not in the top 15-16 alliances, do we really need to know who they are?

I'm fine with knowing who they are, but I am a bit new here, would be nice to be given a little slack now and then -.-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Redarmy said:

Thats fair and true for a lot of people, but you're not acting as this massive investigator would couldn't put together three letter together.

 

I never said I was a "massive investigator". I've done my best to try to figure out the truth behind the causes of this war, for my own personal reasons. Essentially, I got into this war by default, my original Alliance being on one of the sides, and I have a strong code of ethics which necessitates me investigating whether I'm fighting on the right side of a given conflict.

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

2 hours ago, Phoenyx said:

 

I never said I was a "massive investigator". I've done my best to try to figure out the truth behind the causes of this war, for my own personal reasons. Essentially, I got into this war by default, my original Alliance being on one of the sides, and I have a strong code of ethics which necessitates me investigating whether I'm fighting on the right side of a given conflict.

Either you are a clueless noob with a density higher than oil, or a reroll tasked with the job of muddying  the waters and jamming up public communications between alliance leaders to the point that they are virtually impossible to follow.

I'm still undecided, personally. Either way the noise is equally white.

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Shiho Nishizumi said:

There's nothing noble in wanting to incur disproportionate infra turnover on the foe relative to oneself.

This is the most valid point in this thread, and I am in fact disappointed that we did not have a few more weeks of war.

  • Upvote 1

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

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.