Jump to content

National RP - Rules Discussion.


Recommended Posts

Below you will find the list of rules and posting etiquette that are currently live for National RP. 

 

If you have a proposed change to the rules, an addition, or a proposed rule removal - comment below.

 

Again, I need not remind you that any attempt to derail this thread is a violation of general forum rules and it will resulti n a warning.

 

Please, read and understand the following rules and posting guidelines for the NatRP Community.

 

  • ALL STANDARD FORUM RULES APPLY, UNLESS STATED OTHERWISE.
  • The Nation Affairs subforum purpose is allow players to role play specific events related to their nations.
  • In-Game refences can be made (Wars, Surrenders, Embargoes, etc) so long as it relates to the topic being discussed.
  • Absolutely no impersonation of other alliances or players. Impersonation on these forums includes, but is not limited to:

    1. Using another alliance's flag, government signatures, or other alliance imagery.

    2. Using another player's avatar or forum signature.                                                        

  • This subforum is for roleplaying your in-game nations. You must use your in-game nation name, and while you may expound upon the information in-game, things should remain within the realm and scope of the Orbis world and your in-game nation.
  • You must roleplay within your means - by that, I mean you must make reasonable posts and requests. You are not allowed to take control of other nations without explicit consent from that nation leader, and posts like "I invade you and kill all your stuff" will be removed.
  • As a general rule of thumb, you should consult the other person you're interacting with when involved in two-way interactions when there is no in-game precedent. For example, if you win a war against someone in-game, you're welcome to make a roleplay post about how you won the war, but if you do so with no in-game action and the other player has not given consent, your post will be removed.
  • Any rules not explicitly outlined in these sub-forum rules will be subject to Moderator Discretion. 
3Strike Rule

 

In efforts to route out the unwanted posts that do not follow the rules of this specific forum and the entire community, the National Affairs forum - more specifically for Nation Role-play will now have a 3Strike Rule. 

 

3Strike Rule Breakdown 

  • 1st Post in Violation of NatRP & Community Forum Rules: Verbal Warning + 1 Strike 
  • 2nd Post in Violation of NatRP & Community Forum Rules: Warn Point + 1 Strike
  • 3rd Post in Violation of NatRP & Community Forum Rules: Warn Point + 1 Strike & NatRP Ban

It is to be assumed that this rule will deter future unwanted posts as we do not want to have to remove anyone from enjoying the National Affairs forums. This rule is made in efforts to clean up this forum and make it more enjoyable for the community. That being said, there will be no exceptions to the rule - 3 Strikes and you are most definitely going to be out.

 

 

 

 

Failure to follow these guidelines can result in a verbal or regular warning based upon moderator discretion. 

 

It was a pleasure serving this community - Stay Frosty!

Forum Rules ☆ Game Rules ☆ Terms of Service ☆ PW Wiki ☆ IRC

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am probably going to get rid of the 3 Strike Rule. 

 

The new system for warns should help deter the problem posters in this community.

 

 

I'm not sure if you guys want to change this one

 

  • As a general rule of thumb, you should consult the other person you're interacting with when involved in two-way interactions when there is no in-game precedent. For example, if you win a war against someone in-game, you're welcome to make a roleplay post about how you won the war, but if you do so with no in-game action and the other player has not given consent, your post will be removed.

 

 

I also saw that some of you guys want IC/OOC posts.

 

How would you like that to happen?

It was a pleasure serving this community - Stay Frosty!

Forum Rules ☆ Game Rules ☆ Terms of Service ☆ PW Wiki ☆ IRC

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"This subforum is for roleplaying your in-game nations. You must use your in-game nation name, and while you may expound upon the information in-game, things should remain within the realm and scope of the Orbis world and your in-game nation."

 

This rule should be changed, I mean I am technically breaking the rules if this is a rule, and a couple others too. I mean my nation in the RP community is nothing like my nation in in-game. It's a pointless rule.

Sincerely,

The Red and Blue soldiers of Project Freelancer 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"This subforum is for roleplaying your in-game nations. You must use your in-game nation name, and while you may expound upon the information in-game, things should remain within the realm and scope of the Orbis world and your in-game nation."

 

This rule should be changed, I mean I am technically breaking the rules if this is a rule, and a couple others too. I mean my nation in the RP community is nothing like my nation in in-game. It's a pointless rule.

 

I kinda agree, but there should be some limits to it, such as what has already been established.

 

I say no to changing the rule that requires consent

Agreed. If it were changed, it would be like what happened before this section got reformed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I kinda agree, but there should be some limits to it, such as what has already been established.

Agreed.

I say no to changing the rule that requires consent

I also second this ^^^

Sincerely,

The Red and Blue soldiers of Project Freelancer 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am probably going to get rid of the 3 Strike Rule. 

 

The new system for warns should help deter the problem posters in this community.

 

 

I'm not sure if you guys want to change this one

 

  • As a general rule of thumb, you should consult the other person you're interacting with when involved in two-way interactions when there is no in-game precedent. For example, if you win a war against someone in-game, you're welcome to make a roleplay post about how you won the war, but if you do so with no in-game action and the other player has not given consent, your post will be removed.

 

 

I also saw that some of you guys want IC/OOC posts.

 

How would you like that to happen?

 

OOC threads will obviously help with things. Not every thread needs an accompanying OOC thread (one off threads come to mind), but I do think for threads with multiple people that are expected to last beyond the first few pages OOC threads should be encouraged.

 

As for the consent rule... Not everything should (nor do they really require) consent. We are, after all, players on a nations-based game attempting to RP out the interactions of star- and Orbis-bound polities. Natural interaction is infinitely more preferable, imho. 

 

"This subforum is for roleplaying your in-game nations. You must use your in-game nation name, and while you may expound upon the information in-game, things should remain within the realm and scope of the Orbis world and your in-game nation."

 

This rule should be changed, I mean I am technically breaking the rules if this is a rule, and a couple others too. I mean my nation in the RP community is nothing like my nation in in-game. It's a pointless rule.

 

Issue with this rule is simply that it is way too vague. Beyond in-game nation name, there aren't really any guidelines for what is or should be allowed. Personally, I'd nix this rule entirely - there's little reason to keep it. 

Roleplay Nations:

Imperial Nalydya

Kingdom of Waikahla-Pohaku'ula

***

"Your fiction is much greater than our own... We will, of course, defer to your judgement on all things that don't exist."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OOC threads will obviously help with things. Not every thread needs an accompanying OOC thread (one off threads come to mind), but I do think for threads with multiple people that are expected to last beyond the first few pages OOC threads should be encouraged.

 

As for the consent rule... Not everything should (nor do they really require) consent. We are, after all, players on a nations-based game attempting to RP out the interactions of star- and Orbis-bound polities. Natural interaction is infinitely more preferable, imho.

 

 

Issue with this rule is simply that it is way too vague. Beyond in-game nation name, there aren't really any guidelines for what is or should be allowed. Personally, I'd nix this rule entirely - there's little reason to keep it.

That rule is so you don't hijack other people's nations etc. Its one thing when two RPers get together and one takes over, but it's a completely different when one just randomly starts an unwanted war, takes over someone's nation and etc.

 

Consent matters, and most of us agree it's necessary. It's only the new comers who have a problem with it.

  • Upvote 2

PoJQyFJ.gif

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for the consent rule... Not everything should (nor do they really require) consent. We are, after all, players on a nations-based game attempting to RP out the interactions of star- and Orbis-bound polities. Natural interaction is infinitely more preferable, imho. 

 

 

Going on what Riza said, it is the right of everyone to play their nation in a safe and secure environment. That being said, we might see another incident where Mayor "took" Japan and it was already occupied, as such. Not blaming anyone, but the NATRP community knows too well what happens when people don't give consent and how chaotic it will be. 

 

Most of us don't mind if you say, an aircraft flew over France, but if you say The "Name removed" Armada destroyed the Entire French navy and moved onto Paris, that is something no one unless futurity agreed upon says. 

Edited by Empress Wolf
  • Upvote 2

sig.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for the consent rule... Not everything should (nor do they really require) consent. We are, after all, players on a nations-based game attempting to RP out the interactions of star- and Orbis-bound polities. Natural interaction is infinitely more preferable, imho. 

 

 

Going on what Riza said, it is the right of everyone to play their nation in a safe and secure environment. That being said, we might see another incident where Mayor "took" Japan and it was already occupied, as such. Not blaming anyone, but the NATRP community knows too well what happens when people don't give consent and how chaotic it will be. 

 

Most of us don't mind if you say, an aircraft flew over France, but if you say The "Name removed" Armada destroyed the Entire French navy and moved onto Paris, that is something no one unless futurity agreed upon says. 

 

Most of us tend to be overly skeptical of consent for the fact it isn't really needed.

 

What you guys are talking about isn't roleplay - plain and simple. You don't just take people's nations or destroy people armies, lands, people, etc. That sort of thing doesn't happen - with or without consent - it's just not how RP works. I don't actually feel there's much purpose for the rule the way it is currently implemented because it's only really possible for it to be used to hamper legitimate RP - the cases and examples everyone here have repeatedly given or mentioned have consistently been instances of godmodding, metagaming, or other various types of RP-breaking or non-RP passages which have already skirted or leapt over the bounds of RP. 

 

You can start a war. You don't get to claim victory.

You can launch an attack on the enemy fleet. You don't claim success.

You can move men into their lands (assuming a land border). You don't claim seizing the nation.

etc...

 

RP is a give and take - each action has a reaction; it takes effort and it takes time. One party does not dictate what happens any more than the other. If I want to invade my neighbour? Fine - but from my end I just get to detail my movements and actions, not the success of those actions or movements. It is up to the other person in the RP to figure out how far I would have penetrated or how much damage my attacks would have done. 

Edited by Schwieger
Roleplay Nations:

Imperial Nalydya

Kingdom of Waikahla-Pohaku'ula

***

"Your fiction is much greater than our own... We will, of course, defer to your judgement on all things that don't exist."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most of us tend to be overly skeptical of consent for the fact it isn't really needed.

 

What you guys are talking about isn't roleplay - plain and simple. You don't just take people's nations or destroy people armies, lands, people, etc. That sort of thing doesn't happen - with or without consent - it's just not how RP works. I don't actually feel there's much purpose for the rule the way it is currently implemented because it's only really possible for it to be used to hamper legitimate RP - the cases and examples everyone here have repeatedly given or mentioned have consistently been instances of godmodding, metagaming, or other various types of RP-breaking or non-RP passages which have already skirted or leapt over the bounds of RP.

 

You can start a war. You don't get to claim victory.

You can launch an attack on the enemy fleet. You don't claim success.

You can move men into their lands (assuming a land border). You don't claim seizing the nation.

etc...

 

RP is a give and take - each action has a reaction; it takes effort and it takes time. One party does not dictate what happens any more than the other. If I want to invade my neighbour? Fine - but from my end I just get to detail my movements and actions, not the success of those actions or movements. It is up to the other person in the RP to figure out how far I would have penetrated or how much damage my attacks would have done.

And we are skeptical of your "don't need your permission to attack you without consent." bs. We havent had a SINGLE problem with that rule and we had wars and etc. And it ran smoothly.

 

It is RP. An RP is basically a storyline of your nation hence why most post are about their nations internal affairs and sometimes foreign affairs. Frankly, if you have a problem with our RP style, than don't include is in your RP, don't mention us. You can just go have fun in your multi clan bubble and we will do our own. Where it has worked for us.

  • Upvote 1

PoJQyFJ.gif

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most of us tend to be overly skeptical of consent for the fact it isn't really needed.

 

What you guys are talking about isn't roleplay - plain and simple. You don't just take people's nations or destroy people armies, lands, people, etc. That sort of thing doesn't happen - with or without consent - it's just not how RP works. I don't actually feel there's much purpose for the rule the way it is currently implemented because it's only really possible for it to be used to hamper legitimate RP - the cases and examples everyone here have repeatedly given or mentioned have consistently been instances of godmodding, metagaming, or other various types of RP-breaking or non-RP passages which have already skirted or leapt over the bounds of RP.

 

You can start a war. You don't get to claim victory.

You can launch an attack on the enemy fleet. You don't claim success.

You can move men into their lands (assuming a land border). You don't claim seizing the nation.

etc...

 

RP is a give and take - each action has a reaction; it takes effort and it takes time. One party does not dictate what happens any more than the other. If I want to invade my neighbour? Fine - but from my end I just get to detail my movements and actions, not the success of those actions or movements. It is up to the other person in the RP to figure out how far I would have penetrated or how much damage my attacks would have done.

The consent is to also meant to make sure the other person wants to rp and that maybe things can be planned ahead. What's the point of pushing an rp that the other person doesn't want if for anything it isn't fun for that person and it wouldn't be fun for the one who started it because you're being roadblocked and that within itself is going to lead to some things OOC wise that shouldn't be lead to. Also it's just simple RP etiquette.

 

Some don't enjoy waking up, checking forums, and seeing that they've been invaded because some don't really enjoy being caught off guard. With consent they at least know what's coming and can plan accordingly. Plus consent is to make sure godmodding and such doesn't happen.

 

 

Moving on, as for the OOC threads, I can say that might be a good idea but I also think OOC matters can be discussed via PM or discord (but that's me personally).

Nerd To The Core

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And we are skeptical of your "don't need your permission to attack you without consent." bs. We havent had a SINGLE problem with that rule and we had wars and etc. And it ran smoothly.

 

It is RP. An RP is basically a storyline of your nation hence why most post are about their nations internal affairs and sometimes foreign affairs. Frankly, if you have a problem with our RP style, than don't include is in your RP, don't mention us. You can just go have fun in your multi clan bubble and we will do our own. Where it has worked for us.

 

 

 

RP is a give and take - each action has a reaction; it takes effort and it takes time. One party does not dictate what happens any more than the other. If I want to invade my neighbour? Fine - but from my end I just get to detail my movements and actions, not the success of those actions or movements. It is up to the other person in the RP to figure out how far I would have penetrated or how much damage my attacks would have done. 

 

Certain quote segments bolded for emphasis.

 

Well, I see your point in that maintaining the consent model prevents unwanted invasions, harassment and such.  That's good.

 

But, and I believe I do speak for some of my fellow "migrants," but we've noticed a certain trend in Nat RP.

 

It looks like what gets posted are often "summaries," like stories that have already been decided.  War was Declared.  A Royal Family Member has passed away.  Some other thing happened.  Kind of like CNN.

 

But our style of Organic RP is not CNN, it's not a summary of events:  not news.  Organic RP means both parties enact a scenario and the result is hardly predetermined.  Both sides play out a scenario and we all see how it goes.  Schwieger's bolded quote is a good summary.

 

It's a story that's in the process of being told, not one that is predetermined and then announced like a news report.

 

Strictly speaking, it shouldn't interfere with the consent model because the "wronged" party can just ignore the events.  On nationstates some of us call that the Ignore Cannon, and there are times when that has to be deployed.

 

Godmodding, too, can just be completely disregarded by all other players in the Organic RP model, thus preserving the essence of the Consent Model you guys seem to love.

 

EDIT:  Ninja'd

 

 

The consent is to also meant to make sure the other person wants to rp and that maybe things can be planned ahead. What's the point of pushing an rp that the other person doesn't want if for anything it isn't fun for that person and it wouldn't be fun for the one who started it because you're being roadblocked and that within itself is going to lead to some things OOC wise that shouldn't be lead to. Also it's just simple RP etiquette.

 

Some don't enjoy waking up, checking forums, and seeing that they've been invaded because some don't really enjoy being caught off guard. With consent they at least know what's coming and can plan accordingly. Plus consent is to make sure godmodding and such doesn't happen.

 

 

Moving on, as for the OOC threads, I can say that might be a good idea but I also think OOC matters can be discussed via PM or discord (but that's me personally).

 

 

Ah.  Perhaps there was a misunderstanding.  The Ignore Cannon can always be deployed if a player is frustrated with what is essentially an "RP Proposal."

 

Anyway, yes, I also support the OOC thread idea.  Keeps things from getting cluttered.  Or maybe we can just use this subforum?

Edited by Shex

"The world is a comedy to those that think; a tragedy to those that feel." - Horace Walpole

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And we are skeptical of your "don't need your permission to attack you without consent." bs. We havent had a SINGLE problem with that rule and we had wars and etc. And it ran smoothly.

 

It is RP. An RP is basically a storyline of your nation hence why most post are about their nations internal affairs and sometimes foreign affairs. Frankly, if you have a problem with our RP style, than don't include is in your RP, don't mention us. You can just go have fun in your multi clan bubble and we will do our own. Where it has worked for us.

 

Calling opinions you disagree with "bs" is rather colourful and I would tend to think rather unneeded here. With that said...

 

A storyline about one's own nation actually isn't RP; RP implies interaction between multi parties. When you lack actual interaction it becomes more akin to (fan)fiction. This though is wholly irrelevant - I explained above why the rule is largely unneeded. It serves no real purpose.

 

The consent is to also meant to make sure the other person wants to rp and that maybe things can be planned ahead. What's the point of pushing an rp that the other person doesn't want if for anything it isn't fun for that person and it wouldn't be fun for the one who started it because you're being roadblocked and that within itself is going to lead to some things OOC wise that shouldn't be lead to. Also it's just simple RP etiquette.

 

Some don't enjoy waking up, checking forums, and seeing that they've been invaded because some don't really enjoy being caught off guard. With consent they at least know what's coming and can plan accordingly. Plus consent is to make sure godmodding and such doesn't happen.

 

 

Moving on, as for the OOC threads, I can say that might be a good idea but I also think OOC matters can be discussed via PM or discord (but that's me personally).

 

You are correct - somewhat. Sure things can be planned out ahead if you so desire, you might even shoot the person a PM. Ultimately if they don't wish to RP then the RP isn't going to happen, this doesn't really need to be said. The main issue is that we are RPing in a living, breathing, universe. You shouldn't need to get permission from someone else for the vast majority of things. Shex actually ninja'd me, but he does bring up a decent point - godmodding and consent have little to do with one another.

  • Upvote 2
Roleplay Nations:

Imperial Nalydya

Kingdom of Waikahla-Pohaku'ula

***

"Your fiction is much greater than our own... We will, of course, defer to your judgement on all things that don't exist."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Consent does matter. We had multiple incidents where someone invaded without the others persons consent, and took over someone's nation. Also, seriously? It is RP, we are RP what we are doing.

 

 

We don't want someone to put our nation's name in their RP that we do not want to be apart of, which you can say well "It could be Ignored canon" but that doesn't change the fact you are indirectly forcing us into your RP by just using our nation's name.

 

 

Consent matters, it needs to stay so RP doesn't get thrown out of order. Keep pushing for it, a lot of the RPers who have been here will quit if you succeed and it will be just Multi clan left on these forums.

Edited by Riza Hawkeye
  • Upvote 2

PoJQyFJ.gif

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All of the regulars and veterans have complained about how 'stale' and 'boring' NatRP has been lately. The idea of getting rid of the consent rule and allowing for certain actions to happen without consent would be a lively change.

 

All nations are strong and powerful to their own extent, and the new people coming over who are proposing of getting rid of the consent rule has plenty of experience with RP and I'm sure are fair people. There would be no 'I came and killed all your stuff with my orbital lasers' because that's an extreme overreach.

  • Upvote 3

new_forum_sig_2.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes it will. This happened before. Something unrealistic or unwanted shows, and caused a huge amount of shit being thrown. It gotten so bad NatRP rules had to be set to calm everyone down.

PoJQyFJ.gif

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Calling opinions you disagree with "bs" is rather colourful and I would tend to think rather unneeded here. With that said...

 

A storyline about one's own nation actually isn't RP; RP implies interaction between multi parties. When you lack actual interaction it becomes more akin to (fan)fiction. This though is wholly irrelevant - I explained above why the rule is largely unneeded. It serves no real purpose.

 

 

You are correct - somewhat. Sure things can be planned out ahead if you so desire, you might even shoot the person a PM. Ultimately if they don't wish to RP then the RP isn't going to happen, this doesn't really need to be said. The main issue is that we are RPing in a living, breathing, universe. You shouldn't need to get permission from someone else for the vast majority of things. Shex actually ninja'd me, but he does bring up a decent point - godmodding and consent have little to do with one another.

 

No one is saying you need permission for the vast majority of things. That's not how things go here, and that's not how things have ever gone here. The rule is in place to ensure that we don't have people waking up and realizing that their nation has been "attacked". 

 

Some of the older people might recall Lighting attempting to take over half the world's oceans without the consent of those it would be affecting. Everyone was annoyed and outraged, and as a result, the mods took a look and decided it violated RP rules, specifically Rp'ing within your own means. It was because of that rule that Lightning was banned. I'd like this rule to stay, as a safeguard and as a precaution against people (I daresay, trolls) who decide that they can make bold, outrageous claims, and not have anything done. There is only so much we can ignore. 

 

EDIT: lol, I was typing this up, and 2 replies to the topic came in, basically stating what I'm saying... ;-)

Edited by Emperor Tristar Majestica
  • Upvote 1

His Royal Highness Emperor Tristar Majestica

Emperor of the Imperial Republic of Hungadada

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes it will. This happened before. Something unrealistic or unwanted shows, and caused a huge amount of shit being thrown. It gotten so bad NatRP rules had to be set to calm everyone down.

 

And that was how many months ago? Let's try experimenting.

  • Upvote 1

new_forum_sig_2.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And that was how many months ago? Let's try experimenting.

No. I don't see any reason to remove a rule that keeps me out of other people's RP I don't want to be directly or indirectly apart of without prior knowledge and agreements. I literally dont want to wake up and fibd multiclan has taken over my land because we dropped the consent rule.

PoJQyFJ.gif

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I literally dont want to wake up and fibd multiclan has taken over my land because we dropped the consent rule.

 

Paranoid much?

 

Whatever. If the current majority of NatRP'ers want it to remain stagnant and cause more and more people to leave from boredom, it's their decision.

new_forum_sig_2.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paranoid much?

 

Whatever. If the current majority of NatRP'ers want it to remain stagnant and cause more and more people to leave from boredom, it's their decision.

Not paranoid, I just don't want to wake up and find out I been destroyed so I can no longer RP. If it's dropped, someone will do an RP like that, and basically hijack others. Seen it before. The OOC infighting gotten so bad Moderators had to instill rules and guidelines since nobody can make an agreement.

PoJQyFJ.gif

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. I don't see any reason to remove a rule that keeps me out of other people's RP I don't want to be directly or indirectly apart of without prior knowledge and agreements. I literally dont want to wake up and fibd multiclan has taken over my land because we dropped the consent rule.

I'm sorry, but you're seeming a bit paranoid here.

 

We've explained this before and I'm getting tired of repeating it: Every single one of us has at least six years of RP experience under our belts. We know how RP goes. Not a single one of us is interested in fracking you guys over for lulz, because every single one of us is more mature and has more sense than that.

 

And if down the road, some noob or troll does try it? Deploy the Ignore Cannon, because those kinds of posts are NOT RP.

  • Upvote 1

Member of the Union of Multiversal States

"No! I must kill the Karlings" he shouted
The dynasty tree said "No, John. You are the Karlings"
And then John was a cadet branch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And that was how many months ago? Let's try experimenting.

We actually did, infact it was  the first RP done by the new guys and it went NOWHERE

 

They claim they had cannons that could shoot fast moving tanks, and shoot faster than the speed of light to a point where it would begin burning the bullet. I am will and will forever be against the consent rule being changed since it is what started this RP and kept us together.

  • Upvote 1

IYT09l4.png

Ex-Archduke of Defence for BK

3 minutes ago, Buorhann said:

@Lelouch Vi Britannia - BK needs you, but they really don't deserve you.  Thanks for the dankness.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sorry, but you're seeming a bit paranoid here.

 

We've explained this before and I'm getting tired of repeating it: Every single one of us has at least six years of RP experience under our belts. We know how RP goes. Not a single one of us is interested in fracking you guys over for lulz, because every single one of us is more mature and has more sense than that.

 

And if down the road, some noob or troll does try it? Deploy the Ignore Cannon, because those kinds of posts are NOT RP.

We tried that many times, but people like to be trolls, the Great Saxon Empire we attempted tomake "non-cannon" but it took us nowhere, you guys dont realize we have tried and seen quite a lot of stuff, so please, dont be our parents, if you dont like it here, get a new subform or leave.

  • Upvote 1

IYT09l4.png

Ex-Archduke of Defence for BK

3 minutes ago, Buorhann said:

@Lelouch Vi Britannia - BK needs you, but they really don't deserve you.  Thanks for the dankness.

 

 

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.