WTF happened to this place?

[Edward I]

6 hours ago, Hope said:

*are the people who are #2 in the alliance rankings (yes Roq that’s you i’m talking about)

people are just too afraid of losing. to that i say, i don’t care. get your head out of your ass, realize that you’re the problem, and do something 

can’t complain about the game being non dynamic when you’re sitting on 5+ MD level treaties and you’ve never made any politically dynamic moves. 

1) There were exactly zero posts from anyone in IQ or aligned with IQ in this thread when you posted this. I'm not sure what you meant by "get your head out of your ass...and do something", but if you were referencing any content from the thread it didn't come from IQ.

2) IQ lost most of its whales in the last war. NPO had and still has the fewest of anyone in the sphere (zero, to be exact). NPO's largest nation has a score of 2700 and an alliance seniority of 1 day; its second-largest nation has a score of less than 2200.

3) Your alliance is protected by two self-described elite alliances; requires its members to have at least 15 cities; advertises that it is currently taxing 100% of its members' money in order to boost their city counts; and, last I heard, aspires to be a peaceful banking hub. I would love to hear how, in your mind, any of that represents "doing something" or "dynamism".

[The Mad Titan]

1: The reason OWF sucks is because it's a cancerous circle jerk that is hostile to any IQ content. You basically have a group of dedicated trolls who shit on anything and everything related to IQ and it's allies. People shit on BK for basically leaving yet when we were here all we got was shit for performing a politically dynamic move. Ironically now we get shit on for not participating in a biased and frankly dumb "dynamic" moves so for us the only way to win is not to play. Complain all you want about the forum's culture it's your guys creation now live with it.

2: One treaty stands above all others for maintaining the status quo (hint 1+7). 

Edited November 2, 2017 by LeotheGreat

[Dark Kermie]

3 hours ago, Micchan said:

In the last 3 months I stressed everyone in the alliance asking for war, but I have no power ;_;

lolz good luck. Why do you think I refuse to return? (Only if IC was to lead again would I even consider it)

 

[hidude45454]

Here's my take on this.

1. I don't care if IQ is on the forums or not and I don't care who's complaining about who; at this point, I'm basically a third party.

2. Everyone is at fault here, so anyone who points fingers should turn those fingers towards themselves.

3. IQ was a good move at the time; anyone who criticizes its formation was just threatened by its potential.

4. Despite their potential, IQ fell flat on its face and nowadays in an IQ-EMC world the game is even less attractive to play.

With that in mind, in hopes of actually creating some dialogue between the sides, to both of you:

1. What is preventing you from making dynamic moves?

2. Would you move to take advantage of the other sphere if they attempted to do something dynamic?

3. What do you desire, and what are you afraid of?

From this I expect a lot of "Why should we tell you" or "Why should we let the other side know" or "I'm going to give you a lie or half-assed joke to avoid the question", but frankly we all know that that's exactly the kind of mindset that created this stagnation in the first place.

[Sketchy]

People being afraid of losing pixels isn't the problem. At least not from alliances in either main sphere. You don't usually join a main sphere under the assumption you'll avoid damage, as evidenced by literally every global war we've had in the game, it is often much easier to sit on the sidelines and avoid wars.

This seems to be a common narrative thread pushed by many alliances who are conveniently not in either main sphere nor have participated in politics or war in any meaningful way.

To all the non-IQ and non-EMC alliances, put up or shut up. Stop whining about how the game isn't dynamic and everyone is a pixelhugger whilst simultaneously doing shit all and just increasing your pixel count.

Personally, I couldn't care less about political dynamism at this point, as its become abundantly clear that politics in this game is cyclical in nature and we've more or less had the same political dynamic for over 2 years. Its not going to change because the grudges and distrust generated over a long period of time can't be erased without the removal of key figures in politics and a fresh slate.

Also to the people calling the formation of IQ "A politically dynamic move". You are full of shit. IQ was NPO rebuilding its powerbase after its last sphere crumbled under the weight of its own incompetence, period. There hasn't been a successful politically dynamic move in this game since Silent War when Paracov was disbanded over a year ago, and that was undone with the formation of IQ. You don't get to pretend you powerplay was anything but a powerplay.

In summary, most of you are full of shit and are complete hypocrites. None of you have done shit, so stop asking other people to do shit for you, and stop pretending your completely irrelevant little attempts at sparking something have had any significant impact on a stale political scene because they haven't and you are delusional.

 

[Seeker]

9 minutes ago, Sketchy said:

Also to the people calling the formation of IQ "A politically dynamic move". You are full of shit. IQ was NPO rebuilding its powerbase after its last sphere crumbled under the weight of its own incompetence, period. There hasn't been a successful politically dynamic move in this game since Silent War when Paracov was disbanded over a year ago, and that was undone with the formation of IQ. You don't get to pretend you powerplay was anything but a powerplay.

I agree with a large portion of your post.  Not everything however.

The formation of IQ was most definitely a dynamic move large in part due to the actors that were already on the winning side of previous wars.  Not sure how leaving a winning side to join a much weaker and lethargic side would not be dynamic.  It is definitely more dynamic than someone joining the winning side after being rolled in a war which has a strong tendency of occurring.

[Sketchy]

16 minutes ago, Seeker said:

I agree with a large portion of your post.  Not everything however.

The formation of IQ was most definitely a dynamic move large in part due to the actors that were already on the winning side of previous wars.  Not sure how leaving a winning side to join a much weaker and lethargic side would not be dynamic.  It is definitely more dynamic than someone joining the winning side after being rolled in a war which has a strong tendency of occurring.

I don't think I ever claimed a moral high ground in regards to this political dynamism garbage, my statement referring to everyone as hypocrites was directly at everyone who accused others of not being dynamic whilst doing the same things themselves.

Pointing out hypocrisy =/= hypocrisy

As for the formation of IQ being "dynamic".

For who?

BK? Who wanted to take TKR with them initially? Knowing a TKR/BK/NPO sphere would be an even more deadly force than a BK/NPO sphere would be? The alliance who played a large role in Silent War happening in the first place because after beating their old opponents into submission and watching them break apart they threw out consistent threats of additional rollings? 

Cornerstone? A irrelevant sidenote alliance in an existing hegemoney that followed one of the main alliances in that hegemoney turning down other political moves that would have been far more dynamic and far more risky to their safety?

Zodiac? Who on the back of their creation was a top 3 alliance and had the opportunity to carve their own path but instead like Cornerstone followed BK to a new(old) sphere?

or maybe NPO? The alliance who benefited most from IQ's formation by literally replacing the losses they'd received from yes, the alliances that broke from your sphere.

My point was everyone is either guilty or a hypocrite, not IQ exclusively, but sure you can pretend IQ aren't just as bad as everything other alliance who contributed to the current state of affairs if you like.

The issue is simple, some alliances try to dress up their pragmatism as a good thing and some don't. But everyone does it to some degree. Why? The meta in most cases and that meta is driven particularly by all the other parts of my post you agreed with.

Anyway everyone carry on being hypocrites.

Edited November 2, 2017 by Sketchy

[Roquentin]

2 minutes ago, Sketchy said:

I don't think I ever claimed a moral high ground in regards to this political dynamism garbage, my statement referring to everyone as hypocrites was directly at everyone who accused others of not being dynamic whilst doing the same things themselves.

Pointing out hypocrisy =/= hypocrisy

As for the formation of IQ being "dynamic".

For who?

BK? Who wanted to take TKR with them initially? Knowing a TKR/BK/NPO sphere would be an even more deadly force than a BK/NPO sphere would be? The alliance who played a large role in Silent War happening in the first place because after beating their old opponents into submission and watching them break apart they threw out consistent threats of additional rollings? 

Cornerstone? A irrelevant sidenote alliance in an existing hegemoney that followed one of the main alliances in that hegemoney turning down other political moves that would have been far more dynamic and far more risky to their safety?

Zodiac? Who on the back of their creation was a top 3 alliance and had the opportunity to carve their own path but instead like Cornerstone followed BK to a new(old) sphere?

or maybe NPO? The alliance who benefited most from IQ's formation by literally replacing the losses they'd received from yes, the alliances that broke from your sphere.

My point was everyone is either guilty or a hypocrite, not IQ exclusively, but sure you can pretend IQ aren't just as bad as everything other alliance who contributed to the current state of affairs if you like.

The issue is simple, some alliances try to dress up their pragmatism as a good thing and some don't. But everyone does it to some degree. Why? The meta in most cases and that meta is driven particularly by all the other parts of my post you agreed with.

Anyway everyone carry on being hypocrites.

You have  a really revisionist portrayal here. By the time, IQ was even broached, there was no chance of BK taking TKR anywhere. They gathered the alliances in lieu of OO not working out as the split line as their back-up plan. I don't think they would have wanted to do both. It was definitely a gamble for them when they could have easily just harbored personal grudges and made any real changes conditional on "removal of key figures" and stayed on their previous course. Unlike most alliances on that side, they didn't make a point of entrenching personal grudges to the point where they're citing as them as their reason not to do anything different. They signed an alliance that was their previous enemy and there was a lot of antipathy that was overcome without either alliance radically altering itself. They were willing to completely upend their FA to do something different and there's nothing more dynamic than that. I wouldn't say there was anything to gain pragmatically for them aside from taking the available route to changing things.

Zodiac as Chola had tried to make their own minisphere before that with CS and IQ ended up being a combination of both ideas and were pushing dynamism. For IQ to even be practical as a side, it could have never functioned without them and it was a considerable risk for Aerys and co since they had always been in Syndisphere's corner and hadn't really had to experience fighting alliances like Mensa.

They all took chances and placed themselves in risky positions knowingly and partnered up with people they weren't on friendly terms with before. They could have easily refused to entertain the idea of coalitioning with NPO and its allies.

We didn't really have much to offer them, but it was a dynamic move because there was a lot of antipathy towards BK for hitting us the first time and for the reps struggle. I honestly didn't see BK being the ones to try to shake it up and they completely upended the political game when they could have not rocked the boat at all so I had zero issues in letting things go since they weren't the ones trying to keep us isolated. It wasn't really replacing losses for us as it was an entirely new entity. We benefited from them  being willing to take our/my baggage/stigma onboard, but it was never going to be our sphere to run especially. There is zero continuity between Paracov and IQ except Acadia, NPO, and Polaris.

 

[Edward I]

10 minutes ago, Sketchy said:

I don't think I ever claimed a moral high ground in regards to this political dynamism garbage, my statement referring to everyone as hypocrites was directly at everyone who accused others of not being dynamic whilst doing the same things themselves.

Pointing out hypocrisy =/= hypocrisy

As for the formation of IQ being "dynamic".

For who?

BK? Who wanted to take TKR with them initially? Knowing a TKR/BK/NPO sphere would be an even more deadly force than a BK/NPO sphere would be? The alliance who played a large role in Silent War happening in the first place because after beating their old opponents into submission and watching them break apart they threw out consistent threats of additional rollings? 

Cornerstone? A irrelevant sidenote alliance in an existing hegemoney that followed one of the main alliances in that hegemoney turning down other political moves that would have been far more dynamic and far more risky to their safety?

Zodiac? Who on the back of their creation was a top 3 alliance and had the opportunity to carve their own path but instead like Cornerstone followed BK to a new(old) sphere?

or maybe NPO? The alliance who benefited most from IQ's formation by literally replacing the losses they'd received from yes, the alliances that broke from your sphere.

My point was everyone is either guilty or a hypocrite, not IQ exclusively, but sure you can pretend IQ aren't just as bad as everything other alliance who contributed to the current state of affairs if you like.

The issue is simple, some alliances try to dress up their pragmatism as a good thing and some don't. But everyone does it to some degree. Why? The meta in most cases and that meta is driven particularly by all the other parts of my post you agreed with.

Anyway everyone carry on being hypocrites.

The formation of IQ was more dynamic than the status quo: Orbis went from unipolar to bipolar. Just because it was bipolar for most of its history before the aftermath of Silent doesn't discount the state of affairs that prevailed then. All it does is highlight how undynamic it was.

And what if TKR had joined IQ? Syndisphere would have been left with t$, Pantheon, Mensa, Guardian, The Commonwealth, and Rose, which would have still given it an upper tier advantage. Would it have lost a war against an IQ that included TKR? Probably. But if you're trying to claim that the downfall of Syndisphere - which has maintained its dominance in one iteration or another for several years now - doesn't represent some dynamism, then I'm not sure what you think of as dynamism other than a return to a largely paperless political paradigm.

Pragmatism and dynamism aren't mutually exclusive. I'm not claiming you said they were, but that does seem to be the attitude of quite a few posters in this thread. I'm glad the world has Spartas and Arrghs in it, and I miss antics of Mensa and TEst, but I don't subscribe to the view that sphere-building is inherently un-dynamic.

[Dubayoo]

53 minutes ago, Sketchy said:

People being afraid of losing pixels isn't the problem. At least not from alliances in either main sphere. You don't usually join a main sphere under the assumption you'll avoid damage, as evidenced by literally every global war we've had in the game, it is often much easier to sit on the sidelines and avoid wars.

This seems to be a common narrative thread pushed by many alliances who are conveniently not in either main sphere nor have participated in politics or war in any meaningful way.

To all the non-IQ and non-EMC alliances, put up or shut up. Stop whining about how the game isn't dynamic and everyone is a pixelhugger whilst simultaneously doing shit all and just increasing your pixel count.

Personally, I couldn't care less about political dynamism at this point, as its become abundantly clear that politics in this game is cyclical in nature and we've more or less had the same political dynamic for over 2 years. Its not going to change because the grudges and distrust generated over a long period of time can't be erased without the removal of key figures in politics and a fresh slate.

Also to the people calling the formation of IQ "A politically dynamic move". You are full of shit. IQ was NPO rebuilding its powerbase after its last sphere crumbled under the weight of its own incompetence, period. There hasn't been a successful politically dynamic move in this game since Silent War when Paracov was disbanded over a year ago, and that was undone with the formation of IQ. You don't get to pretend you powerplay was anything but a powerplay.

In summary, most of you are full of shit and are complete hypocrites. None of you have done shit, so stop asking other people to do shit for you, and stop pretending your completely irrelevant little attempts at sparking something have had any significant impact on a stale political scene because they haven't and you are delusional.

 

Do you want people to leave the game?

...because that's how you get people to leave the game.

Comments on political dynamics could just as well be made by spectators who aren't playing the game at all.  Yea, you could yell at the audience, but it would just leave and find something else to watch.  It's like when some fans complain about athletes that aren't doing much to contribute to the sport.  Sometimes, the athletes tell the fans to go screw themselves and see if they can do what they do...

...and that's when the fans change the channel and don't look back.  

I play another game that's been plagued by this for years where the status quo power players constantly tell others to do something to make things change, but anyone with an ounce of common sense knows that power players have to lead because if someone else leads, then the power players just react and squash them to look like the heroes who saved the day.

That game's active player count has cut in half over the past 4 years, and it isn't looking like it'll get any better.  What you're doing here is setting this game on the same path.

[Sketchy]

Just now, Edward I said:

-snip-

 

1 minute ago, Roquentin said:

-snip-

 

My premium bait was designed to illustrate a simple point, everyone is guilty. We can debate the specifics like they matter, you can pretend you aren't as guilty as every other alliance.

The definition of being politically dynamic in itself changes depending on the convenient narrative being pushed by whoever is using it on whatever side to posture about how they are the more moral one.

I could level any assortment of accusations and you'd defend them. Either you are guilty of not being politically dynamic or you are guilty of not being politically dynamic and accusing others of not being politically dynamic.

 

 

[Seeker]

5 minutes ago, Dubayoo said:

Do you want people to leave the game?

...because that's how you get people to leave the game.

Comments on political dynamics could just as well be made by spectators who aren't playing the game at all.  Yea, you could yell at the audience, but it would just leave and find something else to watch.  It's like when some fans complain about athletes that aren't doing much to contribute to the sport.  Sometimes, the athletes tell the fans to go screw themselves and see if they can do what they do...

...and that's when the fans change the channel and don't look back.  

I play another game that's been plagued by this for years where the status quo power players constantly tell others to do something to make things change, but anyone with an ounce of common sense knows that power players have to lead because if someone else leads, then the power players just react and squash them to look like the heroes who saved the day.

That game's active player count has cut in half over the past 4 years, and it isn't looking like it'll get any better.  What you're doing here is setting this game on the same path.

Sketchy brought this up earlier but the fact of the matter is if anyone was honestly interested in making the game more dynamic it would have occurred when Rose/VE split from the Covenant.  Now all of a sudden people want the power players to make dynamic moves.  Personally, you had your shot and I really don't want to hear complaints about it now.
 

[Sketchy]

Here lemme tackle this from a different direction.

Someone from IQ, feel free to hit up my dms on discord with an alliance/alliances equal in size to Rose committed to leaving IQ. Then we can work something out.

Otherwise shut your trap with your hypocritical dynamic bs.

Same goes to all the neutrals, either make a sphere for yourselves, start a war, or stop whining and stay in your lane.

 

 

 

Edited November 2, 2017 by Sketchy

[Rache Olderen]

27 minutes ago, Dubayoo said:

Do you want people to leave the game?

...because that's how you get people to leave the game.

Comments on political dynamics could just as well be made by spectators who aren't playing the game at all.  Yea, you could yell at the audience, but it would just leave and find something else to watch.  It's like when some fans complain about athletes that aren't doing much to contribute to the sport.  Sometimes, the athletes tell the fans to go screw themselves and see if they can do what they do...

...and that's when the fans change the channel and don't look back.  

I play another game that's been plagued by this for years where the status quo power players constantly tell others to do something to make things change, but anyone with an ounce of common sense knows that power players have to lead because if someone else leads, then the power players just react and squash them to look like the heroes who saved the day.

I seem to recall SK trying something and then getting militarily destroyed. But I suppose they did not git gud enough like Rose did by flipping sides to the winning side. Made a fatal error there. Flipping sides is clearly better political dynamicism. Hence why BK, CS, and Zodiac followed suit hoping to imitate Rose's great ways.

9 minutes ago, Sketchy said:

Here lemme tackle this from a different direction.

Someone from IQ, feel free to hit up my dms on discord with an alliance/alliances equal in size to Rose committed to leaving IQ. Then we can work something out.

Otherwise shut your trap with your hypocritical dynamic bs.

Same goes to all the neutrals, either make a sphere for yourselves, start a war, or stop whining and stay in your lane.

.Oh? And why should we do that? To be as dynamic as you guys in hopes of improving ourselves? No thanks, don't want my treaty web looking like this.

 

Nor do we want to go UPN's route and turn into your !@#$ protectorate.

 

Edited November 2, 2017 by Rache Olderen

[Sketchy]

10 minutes ago, Rache Olderen said:

I seem to recall SK trying something and then getting militarily destroyed. But I suppose they did not git gud enough like Rose did by flipping sides to the winning side. Made a fatal error there. Flipping sides is clearly better political dynamicism. Hence why BK, CS, and Zodiac followed suit hoping to imitate Rose's great ways.

.Oh? And why should we do that? To be as dynamic as you guys in hopes of improving ourselves? No thanks, don't want my treaty web looking like this.

You mean when SK.....signed with Rose in an attempt to make a third sphere? Really that is your argument?

You literally responded to my claim that all anyone does is hypocritically accuse their opponents of not being dynamic enough by.... hypocritically accusing your opponent of not being dynamic enough. Fantastic defense lmfao.

Edited November 2, 2017 by Sketchy

[durmij]

10 minutes ago, Rache Olderen said:

I seem to recall SK trying something and then getting militarily destroyed. But I suppose they did not git gud enough like Rose did by flipping sides to the winning side. Made a fatal error there. Flipping sides is clearly better political dynamicism. Hence why BK, CS, and Zodiac followed suit hoping to imitate Rose's great ways.

.Oh? And why should we do that? To be as dynamic as you guys in hopes of improving ourselves? No thanks, don't want my treaty web looking like this.

Nor do we want to go UPN's route and turn into your !@#$ protectorate.

 

As I explained in the Cerberus-NPO upgrade thread, treaty redundancy is the factor in consolidation. Rose is in a much better position to leave and try something else than any member of IQ.

Also, nice to see you walked back you're "just joking" defence from that other thread. I can't find it at the moment, these forums have garbage search functions.

[Rache Olderen]

12 minutes ago, Sketchy said:

You mean when SK.....signed with Rose in an attempt to make a third sphere? Really that is your argument?

You literally responded to my claim that all anyone does is hypocritically accuse their opponents of not being dynamic enough by.... hypocritically accusing your opponent of not being dynamic enough. Fantastic defense lmfao.

Depends on how you define dynamic really. And no, I actually said switching sides is dynamic, something both the IQ alliances (minus NPO and GoG) and Rose did. Might not have conveyed it right. The treaty web thing was more a matter of consolidation which is screamed all the time when an IQ member signs a treaty. Though I would say we were more dynamic in our side swapping than Rose since Rose flipped to the objectively winning side while we switched to the losing side.  You have to truly be for dynamic change to join the side that lost two wars in a row and got a draw on the third.

2 minutes ago, durmij said:

As I explained in the Cerberus-NPO upgrade thread, treaty redundancy is the factor in consolidation. Rose is in a much better position to leave and try something else than any member of IQ.

Also, nice to see you walked back you're "just joking" defence from that other thread. I can't find it at the moment, these forums have garbage search functions.

Opinions can change over time can it not? And, setting that aside, I can say I had a joke in mind as I was a bit aiming at sarcasm. But having Aspergers and being sick for the past week while on an online forum makes it hard to convey.

 

And you are welcome to try for a third Sphere. Rose can do it.

Edited November 2, 2017 by Rache Olderen

[Roquentin]

 

41 minutes ago, Dubayoo said:

Do you want people to leave the game?

...because that's how you get people to leave the game.

Comments on political dynamics could just as well be made by spectators who aren't playing the game at all.  Yea, you could yell at the audience, but it would just leave and find something else to watch.  It's like when some fans complain about athletes that aren't doing much to contribute to the sport.  Sometimes, the athletes tell the fans to go screw themselves and see if they can do what they do...

...and that's when the fans change the channel and don't look back.  

I play another game that's been plagued by this for years where the status quo power players constantly tell others to do something to make things change, but anyone with an ounce of common sense knows that power players have to lead because if someone else leads, then the power players just react and squash them to look like the heroes who saved the day.

That game's active player count has cut in half over the past 4 years, and it isn't looking like it'll get any better.  What you're doing here is setting this game on the same path.

It's just a game life cycle. The vast majority of sustaining players in these games aren't even that interested in the politics which are mostly the domain of a rather small number of junkies/leaders. The game's been reliant on too few people and never achieved the broad playerbase needed for it to be more sustainable. What's missing here is unlike a television show, the actors don't benefit from having higher ratings, so the only impetus is either boredom or competition. If people don't get bored enough to do more stuff like Sparta or see someone else as a competitor they need to combat, nothing will change. There aren't that many people who treat it as a pure game where it's the main goal to make it as entertaining as possible/handicap themselves.

[Callisto]

3 minutes ago, Rache Olderen said:

Depends on how you define dynamic really. And no, I actually said switching sides is dynamic, something both the IQ alliances (minus NPO and GoG) and Rose did. Might not have conveyed it right. The treaty web thing was more a matter of consolidation which is screamed all the time when an IQ member signs a treaty. Though I would say we were more dynamic in our side swapping than Rose since Rose flipped to the objectively winning side while we switched to the losing side.  You have to truly be for dynamic change to join the side that lost two wars in a row and got a draw on the third.

Opinions can change over time can it not? And, setting that aside, I can say I had a joke in mind as I was a bit aiming at sarcasm. But having Aspergers and being sick for the past week while on an online forum makes it hard to convey.

 

And you are welcome to try for a third Sphere. Rose can do it.

Pfft, you join the losing side, you're a loser, simple as that. I don't know what this whole "dynamic" argument is, but I mean, joining the losing side is the wrong choice, simple as that.

[Rache Olderen]

Just now, Saxplayer said:

Pfft, you join the losing side, you're a loser, simple as that. I don't know what this whole "dynamic" argument is, but I mean, joining the losing side is the wrong choice, simple as that.

Matter of risk taking. And I can think of plenty who would have said that about RL events and got bit in the rear when those "losing sides" won in the end.

[Roquentin]

Sketchy: "No one on our side is afraid of losing pixels"

Prominent whale in Rose: "losing is always the wrong choice"

[Callisto]

Just now, Roquentin said:

Sketchy: "No one on our side is afraid of losing pixels"

Prominent whale in Rose: "losing is always the wrong choice"

Losing =/= Losing pixels

[Seeker]

Just now, Roquentin said:

Sketchy: "No one on our side is afraid of losing pixels"

Prominent whale in Rose: "losing is always the wrong choice"

LOL!  It is much better to join the winning side so we can't lose anymore.  We should all do it.

[Rache Olderen]

Just now, Seeker said:

LOL!  It is much better to join the winning side so we can't lose anymore.  We should all do it.

Merge back into Rose again? Or is that too soon and we should see about simply disbanding and deleting?

[durmij]

2 minutes ago, Rache Olderen said:

Opinions can change over time can it not? And, setting that aside, I can say I had a joke in mind as I was a bit aiming at sarcasm. But having Aspergers and being sick for the past week while on an online forum makes it hard to convey.

Fair enough, but it's lacking in context as a joke then and in sincerity now. There is only one official bloc in the game, with a supremacy clause no less. If Rose cuts 3 treaties, it's completely away from TKR. 

Also, forgot to mention, but the SK rolling thing wasn't about 3rd spheres, it was about SK pissing off Mensa and being allied to an alliance that slandered Mensa's ally. Mensa liked to fight and SK gave them a reason. And we didn't switch because we lost. We signed people we liked who wanted to try to win, and dropped people we didn't like who didn't try to win.