Jump to content

A Treatise on the Current War


Agent W
 Share

Recommended Posts

53 minutes ago, Leftbehind said:

Ah yes, the great wise meta. Praise be the meta! 

The only reason I'm even mentioning this is that we are treating it as if it's unchanging. The reality is there is a huge part of Alliance Leadership that wasn't involved in KF or even NPOLT, so trying to pretend that there is some standard we need to follow is absolutely ridiculous. Especially when it's tied to a history lesson that no one cares about. 

If you want to argue the CB or Rose actions, than argue it but quit going back to the grandpa Simpson rants about yesteryear. 

I don't think you're responding to my point against Rose.  Frankly, I agree that the meta is fluid and changing, but when people change the meta they have to raise arguments and defend their positions.  This is especially true when they're being inconsistent with their own previous stances.  The KF point is specifically raised bc of Rose's presence as a key player in pushing it.

Rose continually tries to distort the meta and push the boundaries on the informal agreements we all share to their benefit, and then tries everything possible to avoid accountability or even taking a legitimate stance to defend their actions.  When someone else calls them out on their inconsistency, shady actions, and attempts to hide from any public discourse on their actions, they get mad and defensive (often via a stream of DMs that never sees the light of day because again no accountability).

This is one of the crucial differences for why our relationship with HM and Rose turned out so differently post-DH.  At least y'all took a stance, and at least we could have a discussion and make attempts to justify our actions to each other and adjust accordingly.  Rose didn't heed a word nor budge an inch.  

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Cooper_ said:

I don't think you're responding to my point against Rose.  Frankly, I agree that the meta is fluid and changing, but when people change the meta they have to raise arguments and defend their positions.  This is especially true when they're being inconsistent with their own previous stances.  The KF point is specifically raised bc of Rose's presence as a key player in pushing it.

Rose continually tries to distort the meta and push the boundaries on the informal agreements we all share to their benefit, and then tries everything possible to avoid accountability or even taking a legitimate stance to defend their actions.  When someone else calls them out on their inconsistency, shady actions, and attempts to hide from any public discourse on their actions, they get mad and defensive (often via a stream of DMs that never sees the light of day because again no accountability).

This is one of the crucial differences for why our relationship with HM and Rose turned out so differently post-DH.  At least y'all took a stance, and at least we could have a discussion and make attempts to justify our actions to each other and adjust accordingly.  Rose didn't heed a word nor budge an inch.  

I just want to make sure I’m reading this right.   The alliance who left Quack, formed Hollywood, and launched another trillion + dollar global, all straddling the same day change turn, actually has the balls to call somebody else shady?   Let’s ignore the fact that they were unmilitarized too!

Wow.   Just...plain...wow!  Thinking I need some of that meta weed you’re smokin’!

**The views expressed in this program do not represent the opinions of our staff or management here at WABC radio or any of our affiliates.**

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

6 hours ago, Kaz said:

I just want to make sure I’m reading this right.   The alliance who left Quack, formed Hollywood, and launched another trillion + dollar global, all straddling the same day change turn, actually has the balls to call somebody else shady?   Let’s ignore the fact that they were unmilitarized too!

Wow.   Just...plain...wow!  Thinking I need some of that meta weed you’re smokin’!

**The views expressed in this program do not represent the opinions of our staff or management here at WABC radio or any of our affiliates.**

I think you need a dictionary. Luckily I have so many readily available given the dubious literacy of this game.

  • Haha 2

BrOQBND.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Adrienne said:

I think you need a dictionary. Luckily I have so many readily available given the dubious literacy of this game.

Rule #1. When losing the argument and the war, insult your opponent’s intelligence for up clicks from your own alliance. 

Well, back during Knightfall and Papers Please we didn’t play this way I’ll have you know!  😂 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Kaz said:

I just want to make sure I’m reading this right.   The alliance who left Quack, formed Hollywood, and launched another trillion + dollar global, all straddling the same day change turn, actually has the balls to call somebody else shady?   Let’s ignore the fact that they were unmilitarized too!

Wow.   Just...plain...wow!  Thinking I need some of that meta weed you’re smokin’!

**The views expressed in this program do not represent the opinions of our staff or management here at WABC radio or any of our affiliates.**

We are smoking a lot of good stuff at Hollywood. Unlike you have to whoring yourself to others - first to Oasis and now to Ts, and next stop should be Johnsons and revange on Oblivion *wink* *wink*

  • Haha 1

78be39c24ea9f3a0med.jpg 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Kaz said:

Rule #1. When losing the argument and the war, insult your opponent’s intelligence for up clicks from your own alliance. 

Well, back during Knightfall and Papers Please we didn’t play this way I’ll have you know!  😂 

I think you need to revisit that as I neither insulted your intelligence nor did anyone from my alliance upvote. I questioned your usage of the word "shady" to describe those actions. Your #1 is quite clearly: "When losing the argument, pull out a 'no u', even if it doesn't make sense."

Regarding the rest of what you said in this thread, you'll forgive me if I ignore you since you blaming "trillion-dollar wars" on TKR is a pastime of yours, just like when you decided to pin NPOLT on us. I look forward to seeing what your next hot take is. 

  • Like 1

BrOQBND.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Kaz said:

Rule #1. When losing the argument and the war, insult your opponent’s intelligence for up clicks from your own alliance. 

Well, back during Knightfall and Papers Please we didn’t play this way I’ll have you know!  😂 

HAHA YOUR DUMB

Joking btw, I don't lose arguments

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

31 minutes ago, Micchan said:

Done

OR you could have used the Queen’s English and typed You’re, short for You are, to be grammatically correct here on these hallowed Orbis forums.  Where’s @Adrienne dictionary to back me up?

Can’t make this stuff up.  Haha.  

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.