Popular Post hidude45454 Posted July 18, 2022 Popular Post Share Posted July 18, 2022 The lack of fact-based evidence from some of you folks is astounding. Sorry to be the buzzkill here, but in order to investigate like an actual journalist (and not a fake RON 🤮 journalist) I decided to visit every single war force-peaced within Rose and tS (dunno if there are more elsewhere) and see if it was justified or not. Let's break them into a few categories: 1. Clearly Incorrect Mod Decision https://politicsandwar.com/nation/war/timeline/war=1381210 https://politicsandwar.com/nation/war/timeline/war=1381206 https://politicsandwar.com/nation/war/timeline/war=1381200 https://politicsandwar.com/nation/war/timeline/war=1381198 These are the ones that have been brought up the most. Sheepy has undone the strike on them, so it was a moderator mistake. It was not a mod endorsement that missile turreting is illegal as some overreactors claim to be. 2. Wars Against Arrgh and HoF https://politicsandwar.com/nation/war/timeline/war=1382487 https://politicsandwar.com/nation/war/timeline/war=1381758 https://politicsandwar.com/nation/war/timeline/war=1381749 https://politicsandwar.com/nation/war/timeline/war=1381748 https://politicsandwar.com/nation/war/timeline/war=1381361 https://politicsandwar.com/nation/war/timeline/war=1381360 https://politicsandwar.com/nation/war/timeline/war=1381358 https://politicsandwar.com/nation/war/timeline/war=1381163 https://politicsandwar.com/nation/war/timeline/war=1381162 Here are some things all of these wars share: -The wars were against Arrgh and HoF nations, not HW nations -The attacker didn't make any attacks -The wars continued for several days without attacks -- this can be verified by checking the attacker MAP count both at the bottom of the screen and in the war API. I think it is blatantly clear this is against the rules however you shape it. In fact, in some cases it's explicitly against the rules as the attacker did nothing but fortify the entire war: 3. Wars Against HW https://politicsandwar.com/nation/war/timeline/war=1382274 https://politicsandwar.com/nation/war/timeline/war=1382407 https://politicsandwar.com/nation/war/timeline/war=1382272 https://politicsandwar.com/nation/war/timeline/war=1382185 https://politicsandwar.com/nation/war/timeline/war=1382183 https://politicsandwar.com/nation/war/timeline/war=1382452 https://politicsandwar.com/nation/war/timeline/war=1382264 https://politicsandwar.com/nation/war/timeline/war=1382085 Here are some things all of these wars share: -The wars were against HW nations, which then leaves it closer to moderator discretion -The attacker didn't make any attacks -The wars continued for several days without attacks -- this can be verified by checking the attacker MAP count both at the bottom of the screen and in the war API. -Some of these wars also led with attacker fortifies: For those of you that don't believe that these wars lasted several days without attacks, let me give a few examples. First, to resolve the rumor that some wars were peaced immediately without even the ability to nuke or missile, an example: Some people may be wondering why this war appears to be peaced immediately with no MAPs being shown as generated whatsoever. What I've tested and discovered is that whatever script shows when MAPs generate only runs when an attack gets made, and then makes up the difference in MAPs between the last attack and the new attack. So, if no attacks get shown until the war gets force-peaced, no MAP generation will be shown. To prove these wars lasted several days, I asked the mod team directly and provided a few examples: The wars in question: https://politicsandwar.com/nation/war/timeline/war=1382185 https://politicsandwar.com/nation/war/timeline/war=1382183 https://politicsandwar.com/nation/war/timeline/war=1382274 And Sheepy's response: GMT, of course. That means all of those wars went almost a full three days without any offensive attacks. So, there's been a second layer of moderation discretion that's been brought up. What if the attackers ran out of nukes/missiles to hit defenders with? What if they say, planned on naval attacking their opponents but could no longer do that if their opponent built ships first? I think it's perfectly legitimate in some of those cases to have those series of events happen, hence moderation discretion, but let's go through all the nations in that third category and disprove both these theories: Jingoa: https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=236570 -- declared 5 wars on both HW and Arrgh nations. Fortified at the beginning of every single war and didn't make a single attack in any war. There is not a single doubt he intended to win or make attacks on any of those wars, period. Tappin: https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=233068 -- declared 5 wars, of which one war was force-peaced. In that war, his opponent had 0 ships which eliminates that theory. He suicided ground in 3 other wars, one of which he also launched a successful naval attack. In the final war, he launched 3 missiles over the span of 4 days. So, the question becomes, if he knew he could suicide ground or do navals against the force-peaced war, why didn't he? If his plan was to focus missile attacks on the final war, then he couldn't have used those missiles against the force-peaced war. So, why did he declare the war? The Danish Realm: https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=119191 -- declared 3 wars, of which two were force-peaced. In the third war, he also didn't make a single attack the entire war. Seems pretty clear as well. USNAR: https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=103480 -- declared 4 wars, of which one was force-peaced. The force-peaced defender started almost maxed on ships which eliminates any potential need to hit ships before they built or something. Ground suicided in one war, launched 8 missiles over the span of 4 days in the other two. So, this goes in the same category as Tappin. If he had the potential to ground suicide and didn't, and had no intention to focus missiles on the war, why did he declare it? Santa Cruz: https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=66816 -- declared 5 wars, of which one was force-peaced. The force-peaced defender had 0 ships and experienced no naval attacks. Ground suicided in one war, launched 6 missiles over the span of 4 days in the other three. So, falls in the same category as Tappin and USNAR. Of note, both Tappin and Santa Cruz had force-peaced wars against the same person, Clown, whose beige history before they declared looks a bit like this: Love ya Clown, I'm not a hypocrite and admit my beige history is pretty much the same for reasons I don't need to get into here, but seems a bit suspicious you'd pick this target if not to stack beige, doubly so given he has a 1000 infra average, hmm? Manitoba South: https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=166562 -- declared 5 wars, of which 1 was force-peaced. The force-peaced defender had max ships. Ground suicided in two war, launched 8 missiles over the span of 4 days in the other two. So, falls in the same category as Tappin, USNAR, and Santa Cruz. To be fair, I think the people in that category have every right to appeal their strikes, and I can't say with 100% certainty they entered those wars planning to do nothing the entire war, although there is evidence to disprove if that was the case. Regardless, even ignoring those wars, there are still tons of examples showing tS especially planned on declaring wars with no attacks whatsoever and solely the intention to get beiged. If you still don't believe me, you may bring up that in those cases, the wars should only be checked once they have ran to their conclusion. So here are some additional categories that may be of interest: 4. Beiged Wars against Arrgh and HoF: https://politicsandwar.com/nation/war/timeline/war=1382175 https://politicsandwar.com/nation/war/timeline/war=1382270 https://politicsandwar.com/nation/war/timeline/war=1382244 https://politicsandwar.com/nation/war/timeline/war=1382240 https://politicsandwar.com/nation/war/timeline/war=1382233 5. Beiged Wars against HW: https://politicsandwar.com/nation/war/timeline/war=1382184 https://politicsandwar.com/nation/war/timeline/war=1382271 https://politicsandwar.com/nation/war/timeline/war=1382275 https://politicsandwar.com/nation/war/timeline/war=1382869 Here are some things all of these wars share: -The attacker didn't make any attacks -The wars continued until the attackers were beiged -Some of these wars also had attacker fortifies: Interested to hear what the defense for any of these were. So, what have we learned today? 1. It's TRIVIALLY easy to avoid getting force-peaced, and I'm sure the WIDE MAJORITY of Ro$e members have enough braincells to realize this, even when purposely trying to bypass the slotfill rules. 2. Ro$e have had a SIGNIFICANT number of wars in which there where no doubts whatsoever that they broke game rules. Any attempt at distracting from this is PROPAGANDA, pure and simple. 3. I await my downvotes from every tS nation ever. 1 4 4 32 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LachlanPnW Posted July 18, 2022 Share Posted July 18, 2022 You have offended the pixel huggers. Quote Serpentis? More like Serpenis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chad Posted July 18, 2022 Share Posted July 18, 2022 Good thread as normal hidude. I would be interested seeing as many of the people mentioned have forums accounts and some being gov I would be interested in there response to this. 2 Quote Why are you reading this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jordan Posted July 19, 2022 Share Posted July 19, 2022 1 hour ago, hidude45454 said: Manitoba South: https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=166562 -- declared 5 wars, of which 1 was force-peaced. The force-peaced defender had max ships. Ground suicided in two war, launched 8 missiles over the span of 4 days in the other two. So, falls in the same category as Tappin, USNAR, and Santa Cruz. To be fair, I think the people in that category have every right to appeal their strikes, and I can't say with 100% certainty they entered those wars planning to do nothing the entire war, although there is evidence to disprove if that was the case. Regardless, even ignoring those wars, there are still tons of examples showing tS especially planned on declaring wars with no attacks whatsoever and solely the intention to get beiged. Alex has agreed to reverse his decision in my war (still waiting on him to do so), because he made the moderation decision earlier than he should've. Now whether or not people agree with this model of slot filling decisions, this is not how its been done in previous Globals, and Alex has once again made a decision to moderate in a way that goes against how the game has been played historically in the middle of an ongoing war. If he wants to change the way he's interpreting his own rules, he should do that outside of a global and give clear indications of his intentions. 1 4 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Schmo Posted July 19, 2022 Share Posted July 19, 2022 If Ro$e hit up arrgh and hof members for the express reason of beige baiting, then crying "alex is big meanie make turret illegal" when he rightfully calls them out, then all I've got to say is man, I'm very dissapointed by Ro$e. Don't make this a trend, either. We will witch hunt you. 6 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avatar Patrick Posted July 19, 2022 Share Posted July 19, 2022 Hate to say it but I actually agree with ro$e on this. My understanding has always been that slotfilling is defined as when 2 allies make an agreement to go to war with the intent of filling defensive slots so their enemies can't declare on them. I know that in the past I made a slotfilling report over "purchasing" bounties. The difference was that there was actual collaboration between the combatants and my concern was that if allowed to continue, it would ruin the bounty mechanic. I think it's perfectly understandable to try and get beiged by your adversaries when you're in a losing position. That's just smart strategy. If hollywood is concerned about ro$e getting to much beige, they should show some restraint and learn to properly beige cycle so that it's not an issue. I'm disappointed that they would prefer to instead use moderation as a weapon. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Pablo Posted July 19, 2022 Popular Post Share Posted July 19, 2022 You lost so much time going through wars, when you could have stopped by the Game Rules and read point 4. But I will post the snippet here for your convinience. Quote 4. War Slot Filling Moderation Points Guideline: 25-75 Expiration: 2 Years Declaring war on a nation without the intention of fighting them is punishable by a nation strike and additional punishment for multiple violations. You are not allowed to declare war on nations to prevent them from being attacked by other nations. This same rule applies with spies and espionage operations. Knowingly participating in having your war or spy slots filled is also considered a violation of this rule. Declaring war on your allies is generally considered war slot filling and against the rules. In cases where relationships between nations or alliances are not clear, moderators will use their best determination to decide if nations are allied and therefore war slot filling or not. One example of this type of rule-breaking behavior would be leaving your alliance to declare on someone in your alliance or a nation in an alliance allied to your alliance, and then rejoining your alliance. Moderation discretion must be applied when interpreting and enforcing this rule. One example of behavior violating the rules would be declaring war on a nation and sending attacks with minimal units, or using 'Fortify', to appear to be fighting a war, when in reality the attacker has no intention to engage in a real war and is attacking with the purpose of preventing other players from being able to attack the target or to otherwise benefit the target nation. War Slot Filling violations will generally result in the war in question being manually peaced out by a moderator. This rule was created to prevent someone purposedly filling their defensive slots, and as a result, not being able to be countered when performing attacks. That's the spirit of the rule. The people are not attacking with the purpose of preventing other players from being able to attack the target, nor to otherwise benefit the target nation. The spirit of the rule is being twisted. One would think Alex and the mod team have read their own game rules, but at this point nothing surprises me, someone probably got Alex's ear and managed to convince him this was remotely coherent. This has been happening for years, and it is in part because of the flawed war system, where the loser has no option but to resort to unconventional warfare. Now someone decided it was acceptable to weaponize moderation, taking advantage of Alex and the mod team lack of understanding of the game and how it really works. Shame on whoever is behind these sort of reports, which are honestly ill-made and abhorrent. This probably hasn't happened to the scale it has now since the NPO days, it seems like some similar minded individuals remained in the game. So, what have we learned today? Some people have nothing better to do with their time, and have low enough morals to resort to this type of measures. Alex, their mod team and probably you hidude haven't read the game rules. 1 8 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SleepingNinja Posted July 19, 2022 Share Posted July 19, 2022 (edited) 1 hour ago, hidude45454 said: Love ya Clown, I'm not a hypocrite and admit my beige history is pretty much the same for reasons I don't need to get into here, but seems a bit suspicious you'd pick this target if not to stack beige, doubly so given he has a 1000 infra average, hmm? Is.. is it against the rules to fish for beige time? I could have sworn it wasn't. Not tryin to be troll I'm actually a bit confused on this atm. Edit : nvm, pablo's reply wasn't on my screen when i posted this. Edited July 19, 2022 by SleepingNinja 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leopold von Habsburg Posted July 19, 2022 Share Posted July 19, 2022 30 minutes ago, Joe Schmo said: If Ro$e hit up arrgh and hof members for the express reason of beige baiting, then crying "alex is big meanie make turret illegal" when he rightfully calls them out, then all I've got to say is man, I'm very dissapointed by Ro$e. Don't make this a trend, either. We will witch hunt you. No inquiries were made to them at all about this, they've been hitting us this entire war starting from the blitz. Not sure how that isnt a valid target to declare a war on at that point. They surely arent our allies here as the rule points out that isn't allowed. 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avatar Patrick Posted July 19, 2022 Share Posted July 19, 2022 14 minutes ago, SleepingNinja said: Is.. is it against the rules to fish for beige time? I could have sworn it wasn't. Not tryin to be troll I'm actually a bit confused on this atm. Edit : nvm, pablo's reply wasn't on my screen when i posted this. 17 minutes ago, Pablo said: Declaring war on a nation without the intention of fighting them is punishable by a nation strike and additional punishment for multiple violations. Admittedly this part makes it seem like that would be against the rules. Although it could be interpreted that ro$e intends to fight but not win. Either way, trying to get beiged when you're losing is a key part of the game's meta. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Adrienne Posted July 19, 2022 Popular Post Share Posted July 19, 2022 You missed this bit below, Pablo. 23 minutes ago, Pablo said: Declaring war on a nation without the intention of fighting them is punishable by a nation strike and additional punishment for multiple violations. This is how he has defined it for years, it's nothing new. Fight, you're fine. Sit and/or only fortify, you're not. And he generally gives time to see if you'll do anything. It's not generally 12 MAPs and he's immediately on your ass. I'm glad the ones that were clearly wrong were corrected, however. 7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SleepingNinja Posted July 19, 2022 Share Posted July 19, 2022 7 minutes ago, Avatar Patrick said: Admittedly this part makes it seem like that would be against the rules. Although it could be interpreted that ro$e intends to fight but not win. Either way, trying to get beiged when you're losing is a key part of the game's meta. I was honestly just concerned to see if I was doing it but going by the last global I was in that's not the case for me. I know I ignored wars but looking back they were all defensive slots. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pablo Posted July 19, 2022 Share Posted July 19, 2022 4 minutes ago, Adrienne said: You missed this bit below, Pablo. This is how he has defined it for years, it's nothing new. Fight, you're fine. Sit and/or only fortify, you're not. And he generally gives time to see if you'll do anything. It's not generally 12 MAPs and he's immediately on your ass. I'm glad the ones that were clearly wrong were corrected, however. You and I have been playing long enough and understand the game well enough to know what's the true purpose of this rule Adri. The real purpose and point of this rule is what I outlined in my last post, and I think anyone that understands the game can agree on this. The only real use for this is to prevent someone from not being able to be countered, period. Here the nations on the receiving end are not getting any benefit, since: They rarely get triple slotted (and I say rarely, giving the benefit of the doubt, but it probably has't happened, so never), thus the target in question can still be attacked. We don't really have any means to fight convenitionally to be affected by this. If anything, we should be the ones reporting our members for making your nations hard to hit😛 Also Rule #4 should be interpreted as a whole, and not just the first sentence, or just the second half. You can see how Alex elaborates more about the real uses and specific cases if you further read, so just taking the first part is going against to the spirit of the rule. Now, the moderation team and Alex can choose to be obtuse, but really just think for a second what benefit these nations are getting, and how it is impacting gameplay. Then think if this is really fair moderation, in the sense that if it is really addreasing a problem or not. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Horsecock Posted July 19, 2022 Popular Post Share Posted July 19, 2022 (edited) I think the discussion is getting to a more productive state now. So, should the rule only be enforced when the intent was to fill someone's slots specifically for their benefit? The obvious glaring problem with trying to do it that way is that it would realistically be impossible for the admin (or whoever reports it, since the admins likely wouldn't put any effort into investigating it) to prove intent, so it would be easy to abuse. Edited July 19, 2022 by Horsecock 7 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adrienne Posted July 19, 2022 Share Posted July 19, 2022 10 minutes ago, Pablo said: You and I have been playing long enough and understand the game well enough to know what's the true purpose of this rule Adri. The real purpose and point of this rule is what I outlined in my last post, and I think anyone that understands the game can agree on this. The only real use for this is to prevent someone from not being able to be countered, period. Here the nations on the receiving end are not getting any benefit, since: They rarely get triple slotted (and I say rarely, giving the benefit of the doubt, but it probably has't happened, so never), thus the target in question can still be attacked. We don't really have any means to fight convenitionally to be affected by this. If anything, we should be the ones reporting our members for making your nations hard to hit😛 Also Rule #4 should be interpreted as a whole, and not just the first sentence, or just the second half. You can see how Alex elaborates more about the real uses and specific cases if you further read, so just taking the first part is going against to the spirit of the rule. Now, the moderation team and Alex can choose to be obtuse, but really just think for a second what benefit these nations are getting, and how it is impacting gameplay. Then think if this is really fair moderation, in the sense that if it is really addreasing a problem or not. We've also been playing long enough to understand how Alex moderates these. Like I said, it's nothing new. That's the only part of this I'm taking issue with, this attitude of being like "oh, this is changing midwar". It's not, it's been this way for years. If you think that it should be approached differently, that's another story. I agree with you on the purpose of the rule and if people have ideas for a better way of handling it, I would hope Alex would be all ears. I, however, don't really. 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Sweeeeet Ronny D Posted July 19, 2022 Popular Post Share Posted July 19, 2022 I dont see the issue here, if you declared a war against someone your alliance is at war with, who cares if you attack or not? As long as allies arent declaring wars on each other to fill defensive slots whats the problem here? 1 16 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mayor Posted July 19, 2022 Share Posted July 19, 2022 As someone that has been repeatedly forced peace and nation striked for war slot filling and trying every way imaginable to get around it.. I can say for sure this is nothing new, and since nation strikes expire these days it is not even that bad tbqh. As others have said it is very hard to enforce this rule and often if the war slot filling does not get reported you can easily get away with it... It has been this way since I was raiding in 2016 in Arrgh. Probably should get changed tbqh if even possible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pablo Posted July 19, 2022 Share Posted July 19, 2022 4 minutes ago, Horsecock said: I think the discussion is getting to a more productive state now. So, should the rule only be enforced when the intent was to fill someone's slots specifically for their benefit? The obvious glaring problem with trying to do it that way is that it would realistically be impossible for the admin (or whoever reports it, since the admins likely wouldn't put any effort into investigating it) to prove intent, so it would be easy to abuse. imo the rule already tries to cover this, it outlines the cases where it is a punishable offense. If the moderator enforcing the rule has a basic understanding of how the game works and does some basic research, it should be easy to decide in most cases. If the nation who is striked thinks it was a bad judgement, they can scale it and open a ticket, so that more mods can weight in and make a final decision. It should be at the mods discreation, provided they understand how the game works. I honestly thought this rule had been applied like this all this time. 2 minutes ago, Adrienne said: We've also been playing long enough to understand how Alex moderates these. Like I said, it's nothing new. That's the only part of this I'm taking issue with, this attitude of being like "oh, this is changing midwar". It's not, it's been this way for years. If you think that it should be approached differently, that's another story. I agree with you on the purpose of the rule and if people have ideas for a better way of handling it, I would hope Alex would be all ears. I, however, don't really. You have to admit this hasn't happened before to this scale, probably since NPOLT, and I am personally not saying X or Y are doing, it could be your sphere, it could be HoF, it could be some random people who are not even involved, it might be organized, it might be just individuals, but the purpose of my post is to try to get this to stop and not to point fingers, because this is weaponizing moderation, and I will be very pissed off if any of my members or allies ends up being banned because the moderation team is garbage and chooses to entertain these sort of reports. Hopefully, Alex changes his mind and moderates better this rule. 2 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avatar Patrick Posted July 19, 2022 Share Posted July 19, 2022 (edited) I suppose this could be resolved by adding a clause that explicitly states "it's not against the rules to attack your enemies" period It would be up to the mods to determine who's considered an "enemy" Edited July 19, 2022 by Avatar Patrick Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raphael Posted July 19, 2022 Share Posted July 19, 2022 Given the events over the last 24 hours, this is absolutely !@#$ed. I will take this time to say if all wars ended in beige, we wouldn't need to enforce beige-fishing moderation rules though. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sam Cooper Posted July 19, 2022 Share Posted July 19, 2022 When your whole intention is to get beiged in a war, why force people to pretend they are fighting or they declared with intention to win or even fight in the first place? what purpose does it serve? It is pretty obvious there are wars that are declared to lose and it is not exclusive to an alliance or a sphere. As hc pointed out, how do you prove intent, esp in wars where a zeroed nation declares on a militarized pirate? Apart from that how do you prove that the attacked nation got any benefit with that war or they were in agreement? Just now, Joe Schmo said: If Ro$e hit up arrgh and hof members for the express reason of beige baiting, then crying "alex is big meanie make turret illegal" when he rightfully calls them out, then all I've got to say is man, I'm very dissapointed by Ro$e. Don't make this a trend, either. We will witch hunt you. If you're implying an agreement there was none and you should feel bad for proposing it, while I would love being paid to beige people I usually do it for free and often without their consent. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KindaEpicMoah Posted July 19, 2022 Share Posted July 19, 2022 41 minutes ago, Pablo said: You have to admit this hasn't happened before to this scale, probably since NPOLT But Rose was doing this exact same thing against Arrgh and KT and getting striked for it during Guns and Roses? I do not understand at all how there's an outcry for a lack of precedent when this is the same shit Rose peddles out every war when they have no other options 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tartarus Posted July 19, 2022 Share Posted July 19, 2022 (edited) 3 hours ago, Joe Schmo said: If Ro$e hit up arrgh and hof members for the express reason of beige baiting, then crying "alex is big meanie make turret illegal" when he rightfully calls them out, then all I've got to say is man, I'm very dissapointed by Ro$e. Don't make this a trend, either. We will witch hunt you. HoF blitzed Celestial at time of the war's inception. They did enough damage to both the military and blitzed nations to negate any form of claim that HoF slot filled Celestial. It's both amusing and disappointing this is the point you've decided to hone in on. Edited July 19, 2022 by Tartarus 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danzek Posted July 19, 2022 Share Posted July 19, 2022 In guerilla wars, I've declared on nations I didn't intend to fight for a few days. The assumption would be that I'd get beiged by another nation first and I wanted to still have wars going I could nuke/missile in (as you can't declare wars while beige without leaving the protected color). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zei-Sakura Alsainn Posted July 19, 2022 Share Posted July 19, 2022 (edited) 42 minutes ago, Tartarus said: HoF blitzed both HW and Celestial at time of the war's inception. They did enough damage to both the military and blitzed nations to negate any form of claim that HoF slot filled Celestial. It's both amusing and disappointing this is the point you've decided to hone in on. After a cursory by-hand glimpse at the HoF wars page since the start of the war on June 29th, 2022, I have found a grand total of: 7, wars against Hollywood nations. I think one or two of these were within 48 hours of the blitz. Hundreds, against Celestial, including near a hundred, maybe beyond, I don't have sheets and I'm sure as shit not counting all of these by hand, on the day of the blitz. But yeah no they totally blitzed both sides! They're totally fighting both Actively! You can tell because while fighting a victorious militarized sphere outnumbering them 12:1 they're getting bored and clubbing Polaris and random micros while having full military! Not to say that they slotfilled, but this rhetoric implies they've been even close to evenly hitting both sides and therefore it's ridiculous for Ro$e to target them. This is what HC has been trying to claim. Yeah, no. Please stop reiterating this total and complete nonsense. It is blatantly and patently false, let's not contribute to it spreading. Edited July 19, 2022 by Zei-Sakura Alsainn 1 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.