All Activity

Pacific Radio Network TRANSCRIPT FROM PACIFIC RADIO NETWORK STATION 101.9 FM NIGHTLY NEWS WITH FRED CAMPBELL August 11, 2168 AUGUSTINE SPECULATION Radio Host Fred Campbell and New Horizon Leader in the Commune, Walter Lewis [CAMPBELL] Riots in the north and warmongers in the south, we are stuck between a rock and a hard place. [Montage of radio clips and songs referring to being stuck in the middle] [CAMPBELL] This is Pacific Radio Network Nightly News, and I'm your host, Fred Campbell. Tonight, I've got a rare guest, a friend from across the aisle, Walter Lewis, leader of the New Horizon Party in the Commune. Welcome, Senator Lewis. [LEWIS] Good evening, Fred. Thank you for having me on. [CAMPBELL] Of course, its been a while, hasn't it? [LEWIS] It has, at least a year or two. [CAMPBELL] Well, welcome back. I can't be accused of only inviting my friends in the Labor Party on the show now. Anyways, there is word out of the Empire today, that they are constructing a major expansion to their shipyard in Mobile. [LEWIS] We've heard the same rumors. [CAMPBELL] Rumors? [LEWIS] Look, Fred. This is the Augustine Empire we're talking about. A lot of information we receive about what's going on there is suspect, and it certainly has become less predictable with the new Emperor. [CAMPBELL] Understand. Alright. Humor me for a bit though. A major expansion to the Mobile shipyard. What do you think they are doing there? [LEWIS] I'd hate to speculate-- [CAMPBELL] Now I'm remembering why I haven't brought you on the show in ages. [LEWIS] Excuse me? [CAMPBELL] Sorry, Senator. [LEWIS] Look, the Augustine Empire is a signatory of the Savannah Accords. We have no reason to believe anything the Empire is doing is threatening to us here. [CAMPBELL] So you don't think they're working on a bigger battleship? [LEWIS] I mean, they probably are, but you're missing the point. [CAMPBELL] You're right. We signed a treaty with one Emperor. He died. His replacement said he thinks the treaty is stupid, but you're still holding on to the treaty as if its gospel and the other signatories are going to respect it as such. [LEWIS] The Augustine Empire has always been--- [CAMPBELL] Wrong. Emperors Marcus Augustus and Alexander Augustus have always been friendly with J Andres. [LEWIS] That's rig--- [CAMPBELL] And both of them are dead and we are dealing with a tyrant. [LEWIS] He's not a tyrant-- [CAMPBELL] Not yet. [LEWIS] And now I'm remembering why I don't like coming on this show either. [CAMPBELL] My producer is telling us we have to go to commercial. We'll be right back after these brief messages.

The Anchor Times July 7, 2168 FORTALEZA AND CASCADIA DISCUSS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONS Flags of the Fortaleza Federation and Cascadia FORTALEZA -- Cascadia Prime Minister Elsie Huang left the Fortaleza Federation this afternoon, after completing a three day trip focused on environmental initiatives. "The Fortaleza Federation and the Republic of Cascadia are like-minded in our pursuit of of a healthy Earth capable of being passed down to future generations," Prime Minister Huang said before boarding her vessel. "While we leave here today with no treaties signed, we've made great progress on discussing our role as leaders on our respective continents as environmental protectors."

The Anchor Times June 21, 2168 AURELIA INVESTS IN DETCHITORIA Logo of the Detroit Motor Company DETROIT -- The Kingdom of Aurelia has made a substantial investment in the Detroit Motor Company, becoming a substantial shareholder and pledging millions of pesos towards advanced manufacturing processes. "Detroit is a unique city and the DMC represents a company which has repeatedly changed with the times," King Antonio II of Aurelia stated. "Aurelia believes that even better times are ahead for DMC and for the Americas."

The Anchor Times June 4, 2168 PROTESTS IN BURLINGTON Cabot Manor, the residence of the Countess of Norfolk in Burlington BURLINGTON -- Supporters of the Ottanian Revolutionaries protested in Burlington today outside Cabot Manor, the residence of the Countess of Norfolk. The crowd swelled to a few thousand, and chanted slogans critical of the Ottanian Monarchy and of J Andres continued support for the current Ottanian regime. "The Countess and the rest of the nobles all claim that they support the revolutionaries and have urged King Mathieu to consider the revolutionaries request, but they have offered nothing but platitudes," said one disgruntled protester. No official statement was released by Cabot Manor.

I hope your war with the Christian collection of crunchies is goi g well!

Maritime Public Radio TRANSCRIPT FROM MARITIME PUBLIC RADIO STATION 102.7 FM NEWSHOUR May 18, 2168 COLE REBUKES CASCADIA Anthony Cole, President of the NAC [BLOCK] Good morning, this is Steve Block and you're listening to Newshour on Maritime Public Radio, your source of unbiased news. [Small 5 note melody plays] [BLOCK] This morning, we've got a special guest, President Anthony Cole of the North American Commonwealth, is here with us in the studio this morning. Good morning Mr. President. [COLE] Good morning, Steve. [BLOCK] Welcome to our studio! You've been in Endor Cuidad for a few days now, is that right? [COLE] Yes, this part of the continent is always nice to visit this time of year. [BLOCK] It certainly is. Hopefully you've had some time to get out of the capitol? [COLE] Not quite yet, but I hope to be down by the coast in another day or two, before heading home. [BLOCK] So, you've been here, meeting with some of the Senators in the Commune, and meeting with President Mueller. [COLE] Yes, sir. And Director Sparks. We can cut to the chase a little, Steve, I know the questions you want to ask me aren't really about my weekend plans. [BLOCK] Sure thing, Mr. President. So last week, you were quoted by the Kansas City Star as saying, "If Cascadia thinks they can take our heartland by proclamation, they can try to pry it from my cold, dead hands." Is that a true statement? [COLE] Yes, and I stand by it. [BLOCK] So you're calling for war? [COLE] I'm calling for defense! Cascadia is the one that is taunting us with war. They've got a border. You all signed those Savannah Accords and that only described Cascadia's territory as up to the 110th meridian. I know that there is some commonplace thought that the nations which weren't signatories are full of backwater heathens or something, but I can assure you we know the difference between 110 and 104. [BLOCK] But isn't war the inevitable conc--- [COLE] The North American Commonwealth will not be trampled on! It's that simple. Cascadia can rain fire down with their hell birds, it won't matter. They can't self-anoint themselves as the queens of the continent. [BLOCK] Okay, well, we are going to take just a minute here, while we play a word from our sponsor. When we get back, we will continue our conversation with President Anthony Cole, of the NAC.

Hakai still salty that he wasn't able to allow sadcat to rejoin kashmir during an active conflict. Salty, salty Hakai.

“You bandwagoned into the conflict” - firing line

Defeat alerts should be more costly and the attacking player should gains from them

The ultimate badge of the "look at me look at me" idiot is this, the one man alliance posting a DoW. This is how they all end. It's pathetic.

FA is bad.

Hypothetically speaking if someone downdeclares on someone (buying infra/tech after declaring) from an alliance with twice as many people as theirs and this change is implemented then their options are to burn money fighting back and losing with no significant consequence for their enemy, or turtle and be lose all of their money from defeat alerts. Which of these two things should the person getting stomped on do? Or should something be done about the person who was using a loophole to downdeclare instead of letting the underdog be punished when it should be the other way around? Because if we don't address the ability for players to use the loophole where they can declare war then buy over 9000 infrastructure for troop advantage that cannot be trumped? Then adjusting the defeat alerts isn't even-handed in addressing flaws in the mechanics of the game and it'll be punishing players already on the receiving end of a losing fight instead of incentivising them to keep fighting no matter what. Perhaps closing the loophole allowing a genuine unfair advantage which is done to literally circumvent declaration strength ranges that are there to stop unfair advantages(last round it got to ridiculous levels with the addition of being able to send aid, with 1 nation getting 10,000 tech to drop WRC powered nukes on people who had no chance even without the WRC in play). It could be better at reducing turtling on the whole, if people cannot downdeclare then there is less need to turtle against an opponent and increasing the defeat alert penalty is a bit more of a reasonable pitch to make. If a player can brazenly exploit a loophole like that to get juiced up if they simply wait until they've clicked to declare the war before doing so? Why should we support a change that would more often than not penalise the people on the receiving end of a beatdown from a nation exploiting this exact loophole. It rewards and punishes the wrong people if we adjust the defeat alert to be greater before we fix the ability for attacking nations to buy up after a declaration because it would push them out of range and they would not be able to declare the war if they bought it all first. It's a loophole that is being exploited and has been for too long. When I get downdeclared on to a ridiculous extent? I will turtle, that is a reasonable approach to an unreasonable assault. We shouldn't punish players who sincerely have no other recourse if the loophole remains open for people to do these attacks.

I think aid could be like SE, 6M cash, 100T, and or 4000 soldiers. I think it keeps people “alive” at points when they’ve overspent, and creates an interesting dynamic of trades when people are building. I think defeat alerts could be Base + Percentage cash , in addition to infra and tech damage. My thought would be that a large enough percentage, say, 5% would force people to stay armed / fighting. Losing 5M with a 100M war chest is substantial.

Yeah I would agree with this in a broad sense but the approach to the issues raised is not something I would fix with a broad stroke at all. 1) I know that the aid cap which was implemented in the last round seemed to reflect the highest amount of aid that was being sent at the time, chiefly so that the people who got a headstart didn't have a permanent advantage so early on in the round. The amounts we could send were ridiculous so it should definitely be brought down considerably for it to function well in the game without breaking it. It might be worth considering shortening the amount of time in between aid offers expiring if the round itself is also to be shortened. If we go by the SE standard of 10 days until you can use an aid slot again, that means a maximum of 9 rounds of 6 aid deals may be sent in the round (this is assuming we could send aid from day 1 of course) If ithe amount of aid we can send is to be nerfed then perhaps a small boon the mechanic can be given is being able to send more individual packages of aid instead of enormous piles of money and technology in one aid deal like last round- because that was just plain daft at the end. We'd all become so bored and saw little point in trying (especially as we'd exceeded the 1m mark for casualties to earn the reward for SE at least a month or two before the round ended) because why bother? No one was going to beat Wes having 40,000 tech at the top of the leaderboard and that was just a clear sign that Ordo Paradoxia had found the most effective way to minmax the aid system alongside their usual strategy. If aid is to be kept in TE it should be nerfed enough to prevent it being used as a wealth creation mechanic and instead used as foreign aid mechanic to help a nation in need of it. 2) As for the 2nd point? Buckle up friends it's time for Wall of TEDTalks with Johnny: If you make changes to the Defeat Alert penalty which hurts the defending nation more? Do keep in mind there are those of us that don't really enjoy joining one of the two main alliances that have been barking at one another over this issue and any change to this will have ramifications for those of us who aren't part of the only two games in town in TE. While I do to an extent understand firingline's position that it is probably deeply boring to fight an opponent that is refusing to fight back, despite being perfectly able to do so? Some of us quite like playing in a smaller team of our own and don't want anything to do with the squabbling rivalry at the top of the foodchain. So if you do increase the impact of a defeat alert? Keep in mind that the tactic which firingline is pointing out as problematic is not to be fixed in a way that is presented as being so simple as to increase the impact of defeat alerts to coax the turtling Paradoxians out of their shells and fight! While it may be the case that it's become a problem as a result of those in bigger groups doing the same thing each round with very few options to meaningfully approach that tactic? It is a strategy that was originally considered to be reasonable to utilise for a smaller alliance or for people who are on the receiving end of a heavy-handed beatdown where their opponents waited until after declaring their war before buying all of their infrastructure/technology/land/military that is giving them a greater advantage than the mechanics should permit. If people on the defensive are being overrun/receiving a heavy-handed downdeclare beatdown from alliances that may have 3x the amount of members than the defending alliance who has no chance of winning against if they tried to fight back because they not only outnumber them but some of them also used a loophole to gain more strength than is permitted when declaring a war. How does the defender respond to this if they cannot turtle strategically against overwhelming odds if it means being punsihed with a larger defeat alert. Something which is penalising the underdog rather than the people buying large amounts of infra/tech to fight with a gratuitous statistical advantage as well as having greater strength in number. If the defeat alert is increased to the point it'd might rapidly bankrupt the defending party unfairly then the alternative would be to slowly burn their money buying back repeatedly to keep fighting in a losing war where they are out-numbered and their opponent is using a loophole to gain an unfair advantage themselves. Any attempts to punch back would be futile and would simply bankrupt them slower. How fun, the agony of choice between these two fates would be far too much to handle 🙄 If I might make another suggestion that is revelant in this case? Instead of focussing on changing the defeat alerts to a deterrent that will be penalising people who utilise turtling as part of their well-hearsed strategy, despite the fact they are perfectly capable of defending themselves and thinking that this proposed change will only affect a single group of people (It is vital to keep this in mind when giving consideration to the suggestion for defeat alerts; as it is a global change to a mechanic being proposed by someone that wishes to see their rival penalised without a thought of the ramifications on the rest of us in the game beyond the two squabbling houses. It is proposed with a view to gain an advantage over their rival and the well-rehearsed script which they apparently follow) So if we're lookin to address something that is done to gain an unfair advantage and is very boring for people to deal with- especially if they aren't in one of the two main alliances. Here is a potential change that wouldn't be something that will end up punishing an underdog: Implement a cap that restricts the maximum level of infrastructure/technology which be purchased by a nation once it has declared war that is relative to how much infrastructure/technology the nation has at the time of declaring a war on another nation. This cap would reset when the war is peaced out/expires naturally or something along those lines. For all the talk of using mechanics unfairly to one's advantage? It's absurd to me that this hasn't been addressed sooner because it's been a loophole for people to use that allows them to fight nations whose Strength at the time of declaration was about 78% of the attacker's but this percentage rapidly starts to decrease well below the threshold you've coded to be in place for the sake of keeping things as fair as you can, as the attacking nation then starts buying twice the level of infrastructure they had with some extra technology on tiop of it. It was pushed to new extremes last round because not only could other people declare downwards from a great height with a large amount of wealth shared out across their alliance relative to how many members aid slots they could use, but they could also get infusions of tech that vastly increased their strength to an absurd degree- then they bought the WRC wonder and the planet Vegeta was destroyed. If we're talking about game-breaking unfairness? Please do give this point some thought as well because it is an indisputable example of a flagrant loophole that has been utilised for years by people to punch down on others well beyond the limitations that the strength range percentage is there to prevent. If nations need only buy all of their nation's statistics after declaring the war to win? Is it any wonder that the approach to turtling has adapted to the point it's no longer simply a defensive measure against overwhelming odds which the loophole I just mentioned is likely to have facilitated, to the point where it's become an integral part of a nation's build and their approach to the gameplay. If something is changed to prevent people using the turtle strategy gratuitously? Then in turn something needs to be done that prevent people being capable of avoiding the limitations to heavy-handedly downdeclare on other nations. Be even-handed when scrutinising this issue because neither of the two dominant alliances should be thought of as talking with impartiality. They both want the Dragonballs for themselves to make their wish, it is in your power to permit this but remember that there's a vested interest in one side to change something and the other who would rather not see it changed, somewhere in the middle there's probably a solution between the two. However it shouldn't be one that results in penalising players that choose not to be part of this boring rivalry over who is using the loopholes unfairly the mostest. How absurd. Some of us only wish to visit this planet and train our power levels with King Kai, not have to put up with the consequences of that silly racket being made. I don't dispute that addressing a tactic which has been used to the point where it's like fighting someone who has the same secret power they use over and over that is difficult to beat within a fighting Tournament. However simply changing something about the mechanics to prevent that tactic alone from being used ad nauseum is a bad idea but if you also changing something about the game to prevent the use of obvious loopholes would be better. Maybe the tactic that's become a problem won't be so heavily used as a result? Either way if a mechanic is changed it should be because it keeps things challenging, not to be punitive against everyone who signs up to fight- it's not a great incentive for people to fight in this tournament is it? It's a tournament so it's pointless if the battlefield makes everything equally fair for everyone, it should be challenging in different ways to test each fighter participating and everyone does what they must to survive until the end and be crowned the strongest at something. FL isn't wrong expressing frustration at it being the same boring dance happening each time so what's the point in participating but it doesn't stop here. A 25-person alliance can run over a gang of 10 nation and nothing changes to even the scores for them but now a suggestion is made in the name of 'fairness' which would mean those 10 are penalised serverely for turtling defensively. All as a result of another group of people that have been using the strategy in a more creative but a dull and robotic fashion to avoid fighting entirely, not solely for defensive purposes when it's warranted? It's still a bad fix because it punishes the wrong people and doesn't solve anything meaningfully, it just means there will be less and less people fighting at the tournament. Which remains true if a separate 30 man alliance is able to have each member buy up infrastructure to collect taxes and sell right back down immediately afterwards to avoid fighting and hoard their wealth; does that behaviour have any place in a tournament of this nature? There's an underdog bonus for fighting with the odds against you in a ground attack but that's the only boon an underdog has in a fight where they might get to break stuff on the way back from a defeat, it's not much but it's something to enjoy about losing the battle. Meanwhile the only two games in town are running rampant; with accusations made about the other being fired back and forth while they continue to be unchallenged at times when they jump on the underdog from heights they can only manage using a loophole to suppress their power level before starting the fight. Then come the complaints about an unfair strategy being used by their rivals who are following a script that is a meticulously crafted minmax strategy preventing the use of certain loopholes against them because they've found different loopholes that are better. Now it's argued there needs to be a global mechanic change to address this, a new change being passionately suggested by someone who has been demanding something must be done about the use of Scouters in battle, without a hint of irony about the use of the Blotswayth rays from the Moon transforming the Saiyans in his alliance to punch down after they entered the arena as a human and have been permitted to transform into a monsterous ape far larger than their opponent. Someone said at the beginning of the last round that introducing uncapped aid was necessary because people are using the mechanics to gain an 'unfair advantage' - we all saw how disastrous that was, now that same someone is arguing the same thing but with a different approach; if accumulating lots of wealth with an uncapped aid system to defeat their rival isn't possible? (curse you for that KAkarot!) We must instead punish them for using a specific defensive strategy as part of their wider gameplay strategy and increasing how much money will burn if they or anyone else tries hahaha and I don't care what that blasted man writing the walls of text is saying, it is irrelevant and they are insignificant so ignore him you fools. All that matters is this: It must be permitted where a change of my design will be made to the physics of this world that will allow us to finally be victorious over the enemy. Then finally, we will have posession of all 7 of the Dragonballs and immortality will be ours. That all being said; If there's one thing to remember should you make a change to defeat alerts or the aid system or anything about the mechanics at all and you stumble upon a potential game-breaking consequence, even if it's after the round has started? As with the suggested change to defeat alerts; be careful you don't throw the baby out with the bathwater because you just noticed there's a bug in it. Test the bath first to make sure it's been debugged 😉 Thanks for coming to my TED Talk. If you reply to my post you surrender all rights to protest against being bombarded with yet another wall of text, neither you nor Freiza can stop me and it is pointless to resist ahahahahaha.

Cute attempt at rewriting history. You had a terrible war. You bandwagoned into the conflict, then tried to flee back to Kashmir. Unfortunately, that didn't work out for you - we dragged you back into the conflict, and there was absolutely nothing you could do about it. You then talked endlessly about how now that you were back, you'd coordinate the renewed war effort on the part of the commies. But your planned counter-attack fizzled after just a day or two, and we completely controlled the rest of the war. We were able to stagger all your key players - many of them for months on end. We then freed up a few of our nations and began dragging down the commies' mid tier one-by-one until we got to Marx. Your surrender followed soon thereafter. Ultimately, you were the one who was all talk - the real 'loud mouth', if you will.

I had a great war. Fought for a few rounds, including one with you. Sat for a round without a single nation left in my range. Left the war and caused such a tantrum NG had to come and save some pride for you, which was also nice. I'd say we should do it again some time but you're on your way out now. You're never going to be in my range ever again. Ultimately you're just another in a long line of loud mouths who come and go round these parts who think they're something special.

Sure am! 😎

I just want to make a note for anyone using this that if you copy your URL to generate a new resource or relocate population from your Mine or Colony this tool will not account for that and only generates the link for moving the wonder to the co-ordinates provided. If you want to relocate population/generate a random resource you will need to add "&Upgrade=1" as a modifer for the generated URL in between when "nation_id" ends and "Location" begins. This is how the part of the URL I'm talking about should look if I wanted to and generate a new resource or relocate the population for my Moon wonders: It'll be the same modifier in the link for both the Colony or the Mine and whether it's on Mars or the Moon. I However if you simply want to move your wonder to the hotspot co-ordinates then this link generator will do that just fine for you! Thanks for making this quick tool that does this for me, now I don't have to faff too much by editing the co-ordinates into the URL myself and realising too late that it's a negative numbered latitude and I've totally messed it up 😅

...what? Why would he only listen to your point of view? It's his responsibility to listen to everyone, and it appears he is. IS that the consensus? I'd like to see tehol's data. I think most agree aid needs reduced. Even your own leader agrees DAs need to be increased. 600k is literally nothing to people sitting on $100m warchests. Again, your true intentions are quite transparent. You are demanding a rigged game - one where you can win outright if you have the numbers, and win via turtling even if you don't. What drives people from the game is knowing that it's literally impossible to defeat their opponents, because their opponents can simply let DAs stack up and rebuild even stronger. What's the point of even having war if you can turtle and be stronger for it? Nobody's advocating DAs drive nations to the poorhouse. We're saying that just sitting there and taking DAs and then immediately rebuilding stronger after the war ends makes no sense. There is literally no argument to be made for this. So you can find a bunch of mules to blindly vote the way you want? If you have an opinion, share it here. Admin can consider all the ideas, get a sense of how the community feels, and make a decision. Sounds like literally every round OP plays in under rules you insist must not change. Because they either are able to win outright, or if they lose they start to turtle and the other side gets bored and disengaged while OP min/maxes and builds back stronger.

Oh man that'll just make it worse for themselves if you know how he feels about turtles.... They should have taken the same approach as we did a few weeks ago when he was still a member of NATO and raided Shangri-la. You didn't hear about that on the news for a reason

Aid takes away any skill from building a nation up. I say we go back to how it was Round 64 without aid. •keep the wonders though. •change the awards up. •60 day round, quick and exciting! the 250 tech bonus was good idea, there was small increase of nations playing. Perhaps increase tech level by casualty. example: above 1M casualty reward is 250T , 2.5M casualty 500T , 5M would be 1000T this would increase players from SE to play.

I played in a supportive role this game for my alliance, and I think that aid made it even easier than in a normal situation to do very little and have an impact on your alliance. Unfortunately, aid ended up being an incentive for that kind of behavior, probably because there is less skin in the game than in e.g., SE, where people are far less likely to send off massive amount of tech and/or money. I think aid in TE was overall a net negative. Bundy is right about the infra lost award, it would make more sense to incentivize something else. Stevie is right about the popular nation award, as that only really does incentivize the biggest alliance to win. I think making DAs have a larger penalty would make sense if it was % based, so that it would not be a round-ender if one alliance decides to blitz out on day 5. Increasing it by a flat amount would be pretty much punishing to whoever does not rush out guns blazing. There is also the problem that FL pointed out which basically is a big FU to people that live in e.g., east coast or Europe, who are punished for living in a time zone and will get auto-DA'd because of it. I think the reason why turtling is a normal strategy when your opponent's down declare on you, often with superior numbers, in TE is the same as SE. It mitigates damage to fight back in a limited way. There is little to be gained as the defender, so maybe there should be a structure to incentivize defensive wars or war damage. e.g., wonders that have defending casualties requirements or bonus XP for ground attacks in defensive wars. Another option might be rewarding bonus XP or even bonus looted money at the conclusion of a war based on who did more nation strength damage, since that would also incentivize people to fight it out. That said, turtling also punishes overextension and poor economics of nations that attack them, particularly in the beginning of rounds, so it's not like it is pointless.

Aid is stupid, It rewards bad gameplay You can afford to play bad and blow all your money. Cause you can just get your friends to farm cash and tech for you. There's no skill left in the game And it made the round dull and boring

If you are going to only listen to one person/ side of the board and not the side that smashed everyone what's the point? Aid needs to be removed for a fair game. That is the overall consensus from most of the players. DAs do not need to be increased. They are already 600k. You boost that up more and you will drive newbies from the game if they even come. Al Bundy is talking about ground wins giving 100k. These are 2 different things. Why don't you put up a vote to actually see the consensus? Most destructive war should be changed. Most popular nation and most government bills should probably also be changed. As Bundy said, most infra lost is a little silly, but it shouldn't be infra destroyed either imo. We've needed those above things tweeked for a little while, we haven't needed aid. Aid takes away from nation building skills and it truely becomes who has more nations. We had to stop and do nothing from half way through last round cause there was nothing to do, and the membership got so bored.

I am not a FL expert, but I have this feeling that they don't easily become tired of literally anything and everything they can trash talk about, which in turn is literally anything and everything. With that said, good luck to everyone involved. Have fun!