Partisan

Members
  • Content count

    1833
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    30

Partisan last won the day on February 12

Partisan had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

4020 God of Likes

About Partisan

  • Rank
    Exalted Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Alliance Pip
    The Syndicate
  • Leader Name
    Prefonteen
  • Nation Name
    Exodas
  • Nation ID
    9411
  • Alliance Name
    Hogwarts

Recent Profile Visitors

4202 profile views
  1. I was referring to the points already mentioned in my post to shadow. As i'm lazy, i'll just point you that way. No, this war is not punishment nor is it "hitting the pinata", nor are you "the underdog". We did not decide on who to hit until late in the plan. Terminal Jest is not a political entity, and there is no political motive for our hit. Hogwarts is seperate from it. With that said, The lack of communication towards HW around the formation of IQ and the inaction when HW (a "third' rival to the parties whom you so fear, at the time) squared up with TKR *are* relevant to this discussion, because they signify concrete points in our relations where foreign parties ended up not working with you as the direct consequence of your own decisions, rather than as part of some universal grudge/disposition towards you. I refer to the HW case because my involvement there means that I have complete knowledge, rather than hearsay. If I may be bold however, i'd daresay that the example is not unique in its kind, and that similar stories exist in other cases. There was discernible tension between key players, as evident by TKR's current FA situation. The problem is that TKR's initial intent *was* one of hoping for mutual splits. When this did not occur, they found themselves somewhat isolated with former allies annoyed at the (seemingly unilateral) decision, yet IQ still unwilling to move. That was and is a source of tension. To say it does not exist is to stick your head in the sand. Do you truly believe that every single EMC alliance still has a paperless agreement with one another? I do not mean informal friendship. I mean an actual agreement to assist one another? I think that's a stretch, and I think it's a stretch you're making deliberately because it suits you :P. I should note that I don't believe you're ruining everything. I have not discriminated in who I shit on for being boring. Go ask the commonwealth what I think of them ;). Be that as it may, I do think you're boring. Is it your right? Yes. Is it something I don't like? Sure. But that's not what i'm trying to debate here. I'm merely telling you that you're not as helpless as you portray yourself sometimes. As for there being plenty of pieces that could make a war a loss... yes. That's the nature of geopolitics in these games, and the nature of coalition warfare. Unless you literally have over half the game at your disposal, there will be plenty of pieces that could potentially swing the war into a defeat. Every leader ever has had to deal with that :P. Again digging a bit further into this discussion: That was not my point. Recall that at the time I queried you with a blanket "We'll take this one on the chin, but know that this will change my disposition toward TKR moving forward"? That was a defacto open invite while allowing you plausible deniability if you so pleased. It was a "Look. Here's where I stand, but I don't need/want to know where you stand yet, because I know theres trust issues". You never followed up. Your choice not to do so. I didn't care much as I tend to keep things flexible. You didn't approach us, so we made a different plan. But it's a good example of a missed window for you. So again... half the shit you bring forth as restricting your movement, are self-imposed limitations. See the above. I think i've already responded to this. We attacked because we could. Because it seemed like a fun opportunity to suicide ourselves (we expected a loss, much quicker than what it became). We also figured if we'd be able to dip, you could be our warm up to more hits. We were mistaken on that as you refused peace ;). You're free to pretend this is a grudge match. We've had a blast, and that's what the war was about for us.
  2. I'll do the same, quoting one paragraph at a time then. Alliances like Hogwarts, Sparta, the TEst successors (and before that, TEst themselves) have all at one point or another since the formation of (and prior to it) IQ, been predisposed against EMC at least as much if not more than against IQ. They are all alliances whom you at one point or another could have swung your way. That's just in the upper tier. Similar things can be said of various lower- and midtier alliances. Decisions were made at various occasions that led to no situation like that occurring. No big deal- it happens. But the claim that "there were no options" is categorically false. Hunkering down is a rational response. It's both cause and consequence though. The claim that "I" and "My folks" have for the most part refused to work with NPO is as false as it gets as well. Prior to the formation of IQ for example, I was working actively on attempting to splinter EMC/syndisphere. TKR, tS and various others can attest to those backroom movements. During that period, I upheld contact with roquentin as well, among others and we actively discussed the viability of various options and hypothetical scenario. My FA at the time was paperless, and revolved around the creation of a defacto grouping which would function as a safety-swing for whichever syndi/emc alliance decided to break and needed the backup. Why? Because it was something different and I enjoyed the prospect. When IQ was formed however, no invitation was given to Hogwarts prior, and the only extended hand was a somewhat post-facto invitation/request (not by roq, but by another from within IQ) to join the war against EMC/Syndi. Besides the sloppyness/communication mishap (which I was later told boiled down to a lack of/unwillingness to trust me), no real incentive was given for HW to give you our muscle. And so, I recalibrated our FA (without reverting to joining EMC/Syndi) accordingly. That is why Hogwarts went in against Zodiac in that war. Because it opened up post-war options that would help me in succesfully recalibrating that FA at the time. Point being: That was not a grudge nor an unwillingness to work with NPO. It was a diplomatic move on roqs part (For whatever reasons he may have felt it was necessary) impacting relations. Even then, extreme amounts of cash were still loaned to you postwar with the intent of building you up, against signifying a willingness to work with you. But i'm sure we only did that so we could hit you like a pinata later. Nothing like building and burning :P. I'd argue that the stance that they must exist because there was no war is equally laughable :P. There has been friction in backrooms, as well as in public. By your logic, I would never have clashed with TKR? We were best of buds when I led the Syndicate, yet here we are. These things take time though, and I suppose that my point is not that you should have immediately split in return. My point is merely that the narrative does not add up, and actually is counterproductive to what your intent was initially (if I recall your *previous* narrative). You keep saying that EMC/paperless have stayed away from any relationship because of grudges, but again I refer you to the example above. I similarly refer you to: - Chola/BoC (Zodiac) who were willing to work with you despite being part of old syndisphere - TKR approaching you post-trail of tiers on multiple occasions to talk about mutual splits and diplomatic options. - TKR reportedly looking to cozy up to you *as we speak* - BK despite being hardcore core syndisphere, being willing to work with you (also despite grudges) - Hogwarts being willing to work with you on multiple occasions If I cared to I could probably add to this list. But I think my point is made. I can dig these types of thing up throughout your history in this game if you really want to challenge it. Capitalization on opportunities does not necessarily have to mean "GO TO WAR". It can mean pulling a swing, sowing dissent, scoring a PR victory or anything else. My point is that these friction points could have been leveraged to your advantage. See my previous point about upper tier alliances you could have swung, for example. Yes, I started a PR campaign back then in 2016, and while I would love to simply let it slide and take credit for being singlehandedly responsible for the permanent political isolation of a major alliance with one single stroke of brilliance, you really, really can't attribute your current situation to *that*. If by now, you have failed to overcome a single PR ploy, you don't deserve to have influence in the game if only for your incompetence. But I don't believe that, frankly. To your credit, I believe you guys are smart, and that makes this entire victimhood narrative seem disingenious to me. And again: Plenty who have reached out over the months. Nothing has just come off of it, and that's as much if not more your own fault as it is theirs. You're right. FA is a two-way street. That means not just pointing, but also sharing the responsibility and potential blame. You're blacklisted in good part by your own hand. Re: DM chat- i'd actually be happy to talk, but that's also something I have done plenty with y'all in the past. Private. Public. Been there, done that. Actually, people did not come together to hit you per say. That's an assumption on your part. I did not decide on/reveal the targets until I had the majority of commitments and knew what I could work with. The scope of our hit was always going to be dependent on what number showed up. And people primarily showed up because they were bored and were down for a fun ride. There has been plenty of talk of other targets both before and during the war. Various people can attest to this point. And frankly, if you had taken our white peace offer at the end of the first round, we would likely have moved on to a different target. But you chose to dig in. That's your right and prerogative, considering the situation, but let's not pretend that "we are free to continue hitting you" as if it was our choice :P. Continuing the war was yours. Justified, but still your choice.
  3. Yay. Walls of text to reply to! You've made my day. Before digging into it- this is what I was hoping to draw out. More discussion. BK reverting to its shitposting ways. Now to find a way to make Zodiac competent again and the war is a complete cultural victory.
  4. You've had plenty of opportunity to tilt "the balane" your way, Roq. You chose not to take it prior to Trail of tears out of fear/paranoia. That's understandable but your risk aversion is your own prerogative. You had similar opportunities to swing various alliances your way since then, but chose to hunker down in the lower tier. Again, your own prerogative. I don't really blame you for doing so, but please stop complaining about how the world is out to get you and how you're the perpetual underdog. You're not. You're a political power player with a very cautious yet pragmatic approach towards politics. That's not a bad thing. Embrace it. You can choose not to take chances for whatever reason you want, but your lack of capitalization on said chances does not mean that the chances were never there. You've done a shitton of complaing about game balance and the like, yet refuse to acknowledge any "game balancing" attempts stemming from the other side (TKR, tS etc.). Instead you double down on the "BUT THE PAPERLESS TIES ARE STILL THERE" narrative. The combination of that narrative with subsequent hunkering down creates a self-fulfilling prophecy in which there is no option but for people to take into account the inevitability of a war with IQ: A combination of hostile rhetoric and a (theoretically) mechanically unbeatable lower-mid swarm. When conflict and tension flashpoints erupted on smaller scales between you supposed enemies, rather than capitalize, you stuck your head in the sand and hoped for war between your enemies while you could further grow your swarm. That too is absolutely fine: but when arguably one of the largest groupings in the game is looking to capitalize on growth at the expense of your war, most rational leaders are going to adopt a more dove-ish approach. Why? Because there's a large risk in being hawkish. I'd point at the TKR-HW scenario for that one. So yes, you are a factor in the lack of conflict among ex-syndisphere. You then complain about said lack of conflict, and even go as far as state (as you did a few times in the past months) that said lack of conflict is confirmation of your assertion that paperless ties still exist. That's a rather flawed narrative. Especially considering that you've gone as far as stating that "you won't believe its a split until they war". Circling back: Grudges aren't why IQ lost trail of tears, Roq. Nor are grudges the cause for hostile rhetoric against you, or for the current hit on you. Rather, these things are events and movements directly influenced by your own decisions as a political entity. There is no good or bad about it. But you're not a victim. Never have been. Probably never will be. You want more proof? Look at the 10 - 20 billion we loaned you during HW's time, and the various moves we (and I) have made against ex-friends and allies over the past years.
  5. You mean the massive economic growth which was funded using loans from Hogwarts (which is now ironically Terminal Jest).
  6. My name has been said thrice. Partisan. Partisan. Partisan. I was summoned. Expect a retort. Expect a thread.
  7. I mean.. the discussion seems to have shifted a little here. Earlier, we were talking about tangible "tiers"- that is to say, the division of nations by "size". Some prefer to go by score, others by infra, others by city count. I'd daresay that out of the three, city count is the most commonly used method by major alliances in planning their economics and war strategies. Therefore, it'd be logical to base any assessment of tier distribution in the game on that. My (and several other people's) argument was that "20 cities" can not be construed as "whale tier" (which I suppose is a fancy name for the tier above upper tier), by virtue of the large amount of people who would then qualify as a "whale" as well as the huge disparity that would create between "small whale (20)" and "biggest whale (30-something)". If we look at tiering, "whale" tier would by definition be the "needlessly huge nations in this game" and should really only apply to the top x%. The rest would be upper/middle/lower tier. It does not make sense to have a whale tier, larger than an upper tier. It makes even less sense to base our definition of "tiers" around the alliances in which they reside. That's a silly way of approaching things in my opinion. You're free to disagree ofcourse ;). Now, if we look at "whales" as a "mindset" and associate it with pixelhuggery/hoarding, then maybe you can apply the term more broadly. But who defines what does and does not constitute as pixelhuggery? Opening up that discussion puts us in a bit of a grey area!
  8. Good evening ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to Terminal Late Night. I am Prefondue, your host for tonight. Tonight we welcome a special guest, straight from the frontlines of the war on consolidation. This man has stood ayy to ayy with the BK baseball team, exchanged emotionless glances with the pacifican drones and watched zodiac fumble around. Ladies and gentlemen, the man of the hour- who reportedly saw kayser himself among the flurry of blades: Grakkus. Oh wow. What a thrilling story. And on that note, we are ending tonights episode of... Terminal Late Night! *background applause*
  9. That was kind of our plan going into this. But it seems I cant lose to you people even when I try to.
  10. Sounds like a communication issue.
  11. Huh? You're in TKR aren't you?
  12. That's a defeat for you then.