An Appeal to The Syndicate

[Buorhann]

7 hours ago, Emperor Adam said:

It's likely the main reason I quit, honestly. I pretty much ruined the game for myself by trying to be someone else and shoddily copying their FA style instead of making my own

Was that really your goal?  Because...  uh...  wow.

[Buorhann]

1 hour ago, Sweeeeet Ronny D said:

The other thing that really pisses me off about tS is the victimhood they claim about the IQ war, hey boys, I dont know if you remember we were fighting and getting crushed for months before you showed up, so for you to act like you are the big victims in that war is ridiculous, you get points for joining in on a losing war, but the victim hood claimed afterwards is not appreciated by any of us that were stuck in that war for 9 months.

And here I thought it was silly of them to claim being victims when they clearly aided them initially.  The whole "Hey, let's attack Guardian/Grumpy".

Then again, most of the leadership for Syndicate after IQ left were members of our bloc during that time, so maybe that's where it comes from?

[EliteCanada]

I think Jessica Rabbit would be disappointed in what tS has become and how they have conducted themselves this war and of late. I was in tS for years, albeit inactive for much of it, and I know I am disappointed.

Edited January 26, 2022 by EliteCanada

[Kurdanak]

5 hours ago, Zed said:

 

 

The people have spoken. The content god demands content. Walls of text have been demanded. People do not want radio silence!

Just doing my part, friend.

Not bad! Make that 20k+ characters, Partisan - lest you lose your WoT crown.

[Nokia Rokia]

I've been gone from the game a while frankly when I left I think Partisan was still in charge of T$ or at that point Emperor Adam was

I have always had a massive respect for T$ and seen them as a prestigious alliance with a solid economic base and something to aspire to try and be similar to 

Those hopes ended up getting dissolved when I had negative interactions with Krampus and several other close members to Syndi allies

Beyond this I can safely say my opinion of horsecock was fairly negative but I do have a heavy respect for calling people out when it's well deserved 

This game is toxic and is likely to remain toxic no matter the side in this we all have toxic gov and members we are ignoring due to them being friends 

I can even say some the people I am in theory connected to are individuals id never want to be connected to due to toxic past relationships and im gonna do my best to keep things clean and try to work out previous issues

There was a time during GW14 where I was also incredibly toxic and for that I actually have several deep regrets and have for a few years at this point 

I hope PnW can overcome its nature of general toxicity and I also hope we can have more civilized forum discussions.

 

I also wanna apologize for my poor written message I'm on my phone as I'm living in a car and don't have access to my pc

[Jacob Knox]

18 minutes ago, Nokia Rokia said:

I've been gone from the game a while frankly when I left I think Partisan was still in charge of T$ or at that point Emperor Adam was

I have always had a massive respect for T$ and seen them as a prestigious alliance with a solid economic base and something to aspire to try and be similar to 

Those hopes ended up getting dissolved when I had negative interactions with Krampus and several other close members to Syndi allies

Beyond this I can safely say my opinion of horsecock was fairly negative but I do have a heavy respect for calling people out when it's well deserved 

This game is toxic and is likely to remain toxic no matter the side in this we all have toxic gov and members we are ignoring due to them being friends 

I can even say some the people I am in theory connected to are individuals id never want to be connected to due to toxic past relationships and im gonna do my best to keep things clean and try to work out previous issues

There was a time during GW14 where I was also incredibly toxic and for that I actually have several deep regrets and have for a few years at this point 

I hope PnW can overcome its nature of general toxicity and I also hope we can have more civilized forum discussions.

 

I also wanna apologize for my poor written message I'm on my phone as I'm living in a car and don't have access to my pc

Thanks for your input, Nokia. I know that I, personally, have not had the best relationship with you in the past lol, but I know that it has improved lately and I am honestly happy about that. I don't like unresolved issues.

Also, sorry to hear you're living out of your car right now. Is it temporary or..?

[Nokia Rokia]

1 minute ago, Jacob Knox said:

Thanks for your input, Nokia. I know that I, personally, have not had the best relationship with you in the past lol, but I know that it has improved lately and I am honestly happy about that. I don't like unresolved issues.

Also, sorry to hear you're living out of your car right now. Is it temporary or..?

Its due to trying to help someone I just spent to much money and they chose to leave instead of helping with rent so its gonna be fine I'll just sleep in my car some till I can save enough money my only concern is for my cat mostly 

 

As for our bad past im sorry I don't fully remember it if you wanna talk about it feel free to DM me

[Darth Ataxia]

Like Horsecock, this is my first WoT on these forums. I hope that not being in t$ is a good enough position for everyone reading not to throw out my responses right away, as I am sure they will echo what others have said in the prior five pages of text/salt. If I knew how to make hidden spoilers, I would use those to spare your eyes the pain of seeing words on a page. Additionally, I often quote only a portion of the section which I am referencing in order to save general page space. I hope that doesn't cause too much trouble for you all.

 

On 1/24/2022 at 10:19 PM, Horsecock said:

For the first time in the history of this game, we actually have a political landscape comprised of a set of (5 before Oasis disbanded, now 4) roughly equally-sized minispheres.

Before we really get going here, it’s hilarious that you forgot Mystery Inc and Johnsons, but if they view themselves in the same way TCW viewed them, they don’t consider themselves in the political landscape either.

On 1/24/2022 at 10:19 PM, Horsecock said:

These spheres are very much able to pick fair 1-on-1 fights, wars that are certainly more even than ever before.

I’ve never really understood why this line of thought is popular. While it is most certainly true that dogpiles are generally bad, there are instances where achieving the goal of the war would not have been possible. The two times that Grumpy actually took some serious losses in Knightfall and Brawlywood come to mind, as most of the upper tier not in Grumpy had to work together just to take them down. The larger issue I have with this statement is the idea that wars should be fair. They shouldn’t be. Sure, you will have even matches from time to time, but going out of your way to ensure this happens prohibits the very purpose of war to begin with which is to win. More than just winning, you should be able to accomplish goals i.e., killing Rose’s infra and harming their economy instead of just wiping their military and calling it a day.

On 1/24/2022 at 10:19 PM, Horsecock said:

I do not ever pursue war for political motivations, and I believe my track record very much shows that.

In a similar fashion to my previous statement, I do not believe that war should be pursued for war’s sake. Wars can and should be borne out of political machinations, or a cultivation of action/inaction. As I noted earlier, wars should have a purpose or a goal behind them or else risk creating a stagnant political landscape, which some could certainly argue with merit already exists. Wars without reason or support are why wars like Vietnam and Afghanistan are considered failures by the public and history accounts. Now whether this reason for war be that someone stole your bank, backstabbed you, has a history of transgressions against you (that sounds better than just revenge btw, GoB), or is your most apparent rival and you want to take them down a peg to place your own group on top. This is also known as politics, or the other half of the game’s title and is rather ironic that HC is all too happy to say he isn’t political, or pursue wars for political reasons, while citing a political reason for Clock to hit HW. If all that mattered was the cage match, I’d recommend that everyone disband their respective alliances, split into teams, and work out who is fighting who and when they’re fighting them. However, that isn’t just what matters. Wars should have meaning, consequences, and results that can be seen, even if it something as simple as an alliance seeing something that needs to be improved, or treaties being created/cut in the aftermath, or the big scary word of reparations. 

On 1/24/2022 at 10:19 PM, Horsecock said:

The only other major alliance in my PnW history to act in a comparable manner was NPO,

I think almost everyone is aware that this line is long worn out, and that you, Horsecock, would know not to beat a dead horse. Beyond its hyperbolic nature, it continues to show that we have yet to recognize the difference between NPO actions that were actually wrong and NPO actions that we just didn’t like. Using the NPO comparison is also a favorite of those who don’t believe wars should have consequences i.e., terms beyond the usual memery and returning to preassigned colors. Such terms in my opinion would fall into the “NPO actions we didn’t like category” and aren't necessarily bad for the game/FA field to deal with.

On 1/24/2022 at 10:19 PM, Horsecock said:

You habitually and aggressively dispatch your keyboard warriors (most of which are current or former high gov members) to every public "forum", be it this one or any major Discord server, in an effort to control the public conversation, spread your own spin and propaganda, and drown out the spectrum of nuanced opinions from all the other people.

These actions have often been present in this game and open to a fair amount of subjectivity. As can be seen in this very thread, several of these keyboard warriors have drawn their swords in an equal WoT manner in response to your own, while others likely have engaged in what you believe to be the usual blithering propaganda. If one sees propaganda and spin, it falls on opposing parties to combat it and provide their own propaganda and spin. This is something that has fallen by the wayside in recent years and been replaced by people who are unwilling to engage in this type of FA, to everyone’s general detriment. If your own unwillingness to spit out spin and rhetoric is something you have trouble with, please consult with your doctor. Now of course, t$ can certainly change their rhetoric styles if they so choose from something you consider deplorable to something you may consider to be more happy go lucky or something, but that doesn't negate the fact that they will still be putting out spin or propaganda and pushing view contrary to other people.

On 1/24/2022 at 10:19 PM, Horsecock said:

But he did actually try to talk and act with the purpose of making the game more enjoyable, and he put a very presentable public face onto your alliance.

The main issue with this and the related section is that you make a fool of yourself expecting the next leaders to be the same as their predecessor. If you have ever held a conversation with WANA, he’ll tell you upfront that he is not the same as Partisan, nor is his goal to be Partisan. I admire him for that, because as much as I loved Partisan and loved working with him, I could not expect WANA to do everything exactly as Parti would have. If I were to do that and then insinuate on top of that that Syndicate wasn’t interested in making the game more enjoyable then I’d rightly expect some of the responses that Syndicate has given in this thread. Their emphatic response speaks to the fact that they do act out of honor for their alliance, even if you don’t like the presentation.

On 1/24/2022 at 10:19 PM, Horsecock said:

And once again, you act publicly outraged and resort to all the same PR behaviours that got you to this point in the first place.

I don’t think it’s specifically the PR behavior that led to this point but some of the things that I touched on earlier regarding purpose of war and FA stagnation and I'm sure we could spend several pages debating it if either of us were so inclined.

On 1/24/2022 at 10:19 PM, Horsecock said:

Please, t$, if you have any modicum of self-respect or concern for the health of the game left

Health of the game is another one of those lines that gets thrown around at least a few times each year with people saying if something stays the same or if something doesn't occur exactly how they want that the game will die. Again, in my opinion, this goes back to fighting wars with no meaning and no goal of moving FA forward or creating consequences that will result in more FA.

 

I’ll let Syndicate folks respond to some of the harsher accusations regarding their behavior and military strategies which is at it’s heart some political spin from a third party (good job at it for someone who doesn’t engage in politics apparently). But that's all I have for you HC, I hope I made it clear enough, since it is after all, just my opinion. Now on to some other folks

 

11 hours ago, namukara said:

Another way in which T$ can be compared to the NPO is in regard to the utter contempt it shows for its allies.

I have worked with Sisyphus, Partisan, Adam, and WANA throughout the past few years. I have yet to see any evidence supporting this claim, both from my experience and from the experiences of other t$ allies. Nearly every FA decision is discussed and t$ although they could easily take over the FA direction and overpower the discussion has always ensured that they hear from each of their allies and work as a group to form the decisions that come forth from Blackwater and before that in Quack (to TKR’s chagrin no doubt :p). This is a method I have taken to heart with House Stark’s own allies and prots. Every alliance from our side in this war wants to be here, even GATO who signed Sunray five days ago and probably would have had the strongest argument not to be involved. Yet here they are.

7 hours ago, Kan0601 said:

"Everyone that has worked with T$" Now maybe its just me but my god working with you guys was a $%^& show. Before Aurora left Quack we fought with you guys in NPOLT which almost ended Aurora. So when we grew back up to top 30 we asked if we can upgrade you guys, you guys said something about not wanting to look like a hegemony and gave us the 72 hours. The very %$&@*&% next day you go sign a M level with CoA, yea clearly shows how much %$#^ you give about your allies! 

Aurora was certainly a special can of worms that t$ gave more chances than they probably ought to have thanks to stubborn HS and CoA. There’s a reason that isn’t “we don’t want to look like a hegemony” for why they never upgraded you and kept you at a distance and I know that you know that

 

Zed’s WoT is a good read as well if you don’t want to dredge through all the other comments insulting individuals or news organizations. Lot of history that was before my time and I always enjoy reading from the older players about it. 

 

5 hours ago, Sweeeeet Ronny D said:

You always push for crazy long naps which besides for tS everyone seems to agree are terrible for the game. 

Not so, Rose was the reason there was a NAP at all post-Brawlywood, for example. This also misrepresents our general viewpoint on the viability or strategic value of NAPs, which we knew would happen when we didn't sign your fancy document. I’ll let t$ respond to the rest of your stuff though (especially the victimhood thing, yikes). I know you enjoy sparring with them more than anyone else here.

3 hours ago, Buorhann said:

And here I thought it was silly of them to claim being victims when they clearly aided them initially.  The whole "Hey, let's attack Guardian/Grumpy".

If I’m not mistaken, it’s been said a few times, but just in case: if T$/HS had an idea as to what NPO was planning regarding hitting TKR four days after our opportune strike on GG, we would not have hit GG. This is why we immediately pulled out upon NPO engaging TKR. Should we have immediately blitzed IQ right afterwards? Maybe. Hindsight is 20/20 and I’ve often wondered how much of a difference it would have actually made for the final result we got.

 

Thank you all for tuning in to the first edition of Ataxia WoT. Hopefully there will be more and serve as a method of political movement that I alluded earlier in the text. Have a good night.

[Pablo]

I don't believe there was, is, or will be a perfect alliance in the game, and certainly The Syndicate is no exception. We have our faults, internally and externally, and we have always strived to improve and correct the issues we find, and as such I am a firm believer of constructive criticism. We have been around since the beginning of the game, and we have been in prosperity and also been in the darkest of valleys, but this capacity to overcome issues and learn from mistakes is what have kept alive and taken us to where we stand today.

The thing that deeply disturbs me is how blatantly demeaning the OP post is and how blown out of proportions the core of the post is. I find unfair what this thread became, and the motive it was created, which is far from being constructive criticism and rather seems like a post meant to paint us in bad light and spread falsehoods. I am sure a post like this can be created for any major alliance if you look closely, and we could talk about their faults, mistakes and mismanagement.

I haven’t been in The Syndicate the whole time I played the game, I was part of INQ leadership and later on I went to several alliance before I found home here (this was all before NPO/BK went nuts, just for the record), and internally and externally, I had never been in a better place. To the people that know me and I have worked with, know that I am an impartial person and believe me what I will mention is what I firmly believe and not some part of a narrative or whatever you call it.

The Syndicate as a community is very far from toxic, it is a place where we can all consider ourselves family, simply because we have created a safe, trustable and friendly environment, where we play and have fun together. We have zero tolerance to any toxic-like behaviour and we actively work on enforcing this. Which is why I find outrageous this thread and won’t tolerate this misinformation campaign about our members and community.

Now, FA wise, WANA has been very professional this whole time he has been Head of FA, he has been respectful in all interactions I have seen him had with the outside, he has gotten us through turbulent and trying times and as High Gov, I have never seen any trace of the behaviour you mention he exhibits.

I think we reserve the right to argue against false claims and narratives that are clearly directed towards harming us and our image, these “keyboard warriors” that “flood” public forums are only expressing their views and debunking narratives that are misconstrued, I think any major alliance does this or at least should do, arguing in respectful terms and as gentlemen that we are, exchanging ideas and promoting dialogue is something that in my opinion should be encouraged. I am not going to deny, we have at times, expressed ourselves in a wrong manner, but it has never been in a way that demeans anyone’s dignity. Also, retired gov are, well, in fact, retired, and they have a mind of their own, as do our members, for official purposes WANA’S word, or whoever is the Head of FA at the moment, should be the one taken at face value, and to a lesser extend our High Gov.

I think we have a high image of ourselves, and I think we can work how we manifest that in public, but I believe there is no sin in being proud of the alliance you are in.

I think threads like this serve little positive purpose (especially when they are far from being constructive), other than becoming a venting room for people who are only trying to spread negativity and taking advantage of it to push their own narrative. It is sad for me to see people saying racist comments in a thread, that according to the original poster, was an appeal for improvement, especially when said member is part of the OP sphere.

I only wanted to address this point, as our FA decisions have already been described in details by WANA and other high respected government members.

[Eschatos]

Y'all wild. Textwalls galore.

[Jacob Knox]

4 minutes ago, Eschatos said:

Y'all wild. Textwalls galore.

I know, right? Had to save those last two to a "read later" list, because I have almost reached my mental capacity for the day and I still have some things to do before I go to bed lol.

[Buorhann]

59 minutes ago, Darth Ataxia said:

If I’m not mistaken, it’s been said a few times, but just in case: if T$/HS had an idea as to what NPO was planning regarding hitting TKR four days after our opportune strike on GG, we would not have hit GG.

I'm not going to go further into this, as it's in the past, but I will state that Syndicate was aware of it.  Or at least certain individuals were.  Pretty sure multiple of us warned them what was going on.  Hence the rage when you guys still decided to pull that trigger.

Edited January 26, 2022 by Buorhann

[Buorhann]

53 minutes ago, Pablo said:

-Snip-

So ask yourself this, why do members of the community view Syndicate as toxic and/or their closest comparison is NPO?  What's causing that perspective?

People can claim their alliance isn't this or that, but if members outside the alliance are starting to hold a different perspective - something is causing that.  Rumors?  Maybe some people's actions?  etc.

Looking back at my past alliance, for example, I had to deal with people claiming the community I led was racist and sexist, all because of 2 members and a few incidents of bad trolling.  That was a very hard thing to shake off.

[Bobert]

i'm going to need more popcorn for this

[Sweeeeet Ronny D]

1 hour ago, Darth Ataxia said:

Wars without reason or support are why wars like Vietnam and Afghanistan are considered failures by the public and history accounts. Now whether this reason for war be that someone stole your bank, backstabbed you, has a history of transgressions against you (that sounds better than just revenge btw, GoB)

One, its grumpy, come on now.  and let's be real here, people would complain about the CB no matter what we used.  What else is a CB good for if not so both sides can complain about its validity?  I also outlined in my CB, the history of transgressions against us which you even admit to one of them in the next quote (spoiler alert!)
 

1 hour ago, Darth Ataxia said:

after our opportune strike on GG

I gotta say, working with Guardian to knock you guys over as you showed up one at a time like a stack of dominoes, was legitimately one of the top 3 most fun experiences I have had in this game. (doing the same thing during GnR is also in that list.) granted it was followed by months of infinite sadness.

[Pablo]

4 minutes ago, Buorhann said:

So ask yourself this, why do members of the community view Syndicate as toxic and/or their closest comparison is NPO?  What's causing that perspective?

People can claim their alliance isn't this or that, but if members outside the alliance are starting to hold a different perspective - something is causing that.  Rumors?  Maybe some people's actions?  etc.

Looking back at my past alliance, for example, I had to deal with people claiming the community I led was racist and sexist, all because of 2 members and a few incidents of bad trolling.  That was a very hard thing to shake off.

I take things from who they come from, and HC is no pilar of integrity and moral values, and I am sure that the people that truly believe this (not simply because it fits their narrative) are similar to him in that regard.

There is simply no parallel to us being anywhere close to NPO, and I tell you this as a former INQ leader who closely interacted with them, there is just no point in comparison, I can’t think of a situation where we manifested any NPO-like behaviour. I have seen logs of what NPOLT negotiations were and I am sure none of our gov at any given point, ever did or said similar things as they did. I believe that comparison is frankly unfair and just politically motivated and not actually something the game perceives us as.

As for toxicity, I don’t think disagreeing with other people and countering their rhetoric can be considered toxic, and if anyone reading this considers it as such, I just have to tell you, you always have the opportunity to argue back. I have never seen us insult anyone or harm anyone’s integrity and if there have been such cases, I apologize, but it is certainly not something that is anything near prevalent or normal, I can assure you that.

I think these views steam from a small group of people who doesn’t have a good opinion of us, and I can respect that, we all have our different issues with each other, and we all have our own free mind, but making up stuff with little to no basis it is not appropriate imo.

As I addressed on my previous post (so I won’t dig too much into it), we can definitely work on some points, in terms of how we portrait ourselves, but I don’t think there is anything serious or concerning to the game’s health as the OP said, to warrant such a thread.

And yeah, I get it, some people choose to judge you from some isolated issues, I hope these posts have made some progress in changing that perception and also the changes we make moving forward, as there is always room to improve.

[Tartarus]

It's ironic there's rhetoric of "bring back discussion and major debate to OWF!" sitting directly next to "Keyboard warriors! Ex-Gov Forum Army! Downvote brigade!".

[Shiho Nishizumi]

1 hour ago, Buorhann said:

So ask yourself this, why do members of the community view Syndicate as toxic and/or their closest comparison is NPO?  What's causing that perspective?

A bunch of them have misgivings which are unrelated to what HC said, and it's politically expedient to accuse your opponent with this game's Godwin. The comparison is most certainly not limited to just t$; it tended to be thrown around fairly often in wars because again, pure expediency.

Frankly, it's disingenuous as !@#$. As it stands, no leaders or AA's are anywhere near similar to what NPO was in terms of behavior. The FA's landscape has been very tame compared to what it was pre (and very obviously, during) NPOLT. That comparison being levied to any AA simply holds no water.

[Grave]

Is anyone going to deny that Johnson's and Mystery MDP is fair ? 

Feel like that would finally even the playing field for all blocs.

[MBaku]

On 1/24/2022 at 7:19 PM, Horsecock said:

Here's the problem: You habitually and aggressively dispatch your keyboard warriors (most of which are current or former high gov members) to every public "forum"

make use of the full arsenal of all the most toxic and disingenuous methods of political drama: Gaslighting, blatant hypocrisy, bare-faced lies and misrepresentation, malicious accusations, paranoia, conspiracy theories, self-entitled boasting, and of course simple flaming and insults. In fact, they do little else.

 At the same time, you act disproportionally insulted and outraged any time someone makes a negative remark about your own alliance. 

 

Just re-posting this since we're now on page 5 plus a full blown "Dear Horsecock" letter in response. 

 

As i read through all these WoTs all I can think is the T$ propaganda machine is out in full force proving HC right. You just love to see it.

 

All jokes aside, in the midst of the WoTs I also see a lot of T$ self-reflection going on and I think that's a positive. But it's almost easy to forget there's an actual war going on in the background of all this. T$ certainly finds itself in a disadvantage this war but I respect an alliance that nevertheless fights back competently and vigorously... in-game.. with actual troops. Maybe I'm in the minority but I'm still interested in seeing how the war continues to develop, where will T$ find some on the ground spots to salvage some wins other than dropping into nuke turret strategy and turning this into a drawn out boring slog like duck hunt.  To the extent that war performance is still an element of one's reputation and a symbol of power in this game, I think some analysis on that front bears some consideration. But I'll leave that to the big brains and their WoTs to show that they indeed do more than "little else."

[Jacob Knox]

21 minutes ago, Tartarus said:

It's ironic there's rhetoric of "bring back discussion and major debate to OWF!" sitting directly next to "Keyboard warriors! Ex-Gov Forum Army! Downvote brigade!".

I've been doing my best, personally, to acknowledge when anyone from either side asserts good points or puts in an effort towards a healthy, respectful discussion. Both sides have their shortcomings—as you surely must admit some of the posts by tS folks here have been less than savory and only further support points asserted by Horsecock et al—but I see some who are genuinely engaging in discussion and major debate, which is an encouraging sign. Neither of us can cherry-pick and define the other side of said discussion/debate by the actions or words of select participants.

 

In short, yes it is ironic to see that (just as it is ironic to see some tS people being the epitome of what was described here), but there are still those who are actively engaging in this discourse this community arguably needs.

[Tartarus]

3 minutes ago, Jacob Knox said:

I've been doing my best, personally, to acknowledge when anyone from either side asserts good points or puts in an effort towards a healthy, respectful discussion. Both sides have their shortcomings—as you surely must admit some of the posts by tS folks here have been less than savory and only further support points asserted by Horsecock et al—but I see some who are genuinely engaging in discussion and major debate, which is an encouraging sign. Neither of us can cherry-pick and define the other side of said discussion/debate by the actions or words of select participants.

 

In short, yes it is ironic to see that (just as it is ironic to see some tS people being the epitome of what was described here), but there are still those who are actively engaging in this discourse this community arguably needs.

>as you surely must admit some of the posts by tS folks here have been less than savory and only further support points asserted by Horsecock et al

>Neither of us can cherry-pick and define the other side of said discussion/debate by the actions or words of select participants.

Surely, you recognise the contradiction here?

[namukara]

26 minutes ago, Grave said:

Is anyone going to deny that Johnson's and Mystery MDP is fair ? 

Feel like that would finally even the playing field for all blocs.

Grave with the truth bombs.

[Leftbehind]

27 minutes ago, Shiho Nishizumi said:

A bunch of them have misgivings which are unrelated to what HC said, and it's politically expedient to accuse your opponent with this game's Godwin. The comparison is most certainly not limited to just t$; it tended to be thrown around fairly often in wars because again, pure expediency.

Frankly, it's disingenuous as !@#$. As it stands, no leaders or AA's are anywhere near similar to what NPO was in terms of behavior. The FA's landscape has been very tame compared to what it was pre (and very obviously, during) NPOLT. That comparison being levied to any AA simply holds no water.

I agree that the NPO comparisons need to stop but it doesn't take away the facts that you guys walk an unnecessary fine line. As much as you may want to believe that everyone here is complaining for some political reasons thats not really the case. Many of us are just simply sick of it. The worst part about it is that you guys don't even have the awareness to see how your actions hurts your position. 

[Jacob Knox]

15 minutes ago, Tartarus said:

Surely, you recognise the contradiction here?

Where am I contradicting myself? I am saying that neither of us can judge the whole of one side based on the actions of some on that side. Perhaps I should have been more clear on that. I meant the reference to some of the responses as an example of that. In that I'm not going to automatically judge you, or anyone else in tS, based strictly on the conduct of a few of your colleagues here.