Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Tevron

  1. Oh No. CLAWS is doomed!
  2. Hey all, I'm working on making a bit of a podcast report on the various conspiracy theories and drama surrounding mi6 at the point near to its downfall. If anyone has any logs or stories to share that they think would be interesting to incorporate, send me a dm or reply here with the juicy drama If you have enough of a compelling story maybe we'll have you on as a guest!
  3. I don't know, I would say probably the historical record and our own sovereignty to make requests as we'd like; of course you have to be careful, asking questions about what is allowed and not allowed is apparently oppression. But that seems to be off topic. RFI has not made any public or threatening bans on tech deals, and this thread (including my message and Ashleaa's response) demonstrate that the claim you're making is fault. Until your next smear attempt!
  4. You are a conspiracy theorist. I would never in any way support a conspired attack on FAN. They have been good guys and gals for years and they gave my friends and allies of the III% a home. We even fought alongside them not too long ago in defense of our allies in MHA. I apologize Ashleaa if you have felt threatened by my message in any way... So the others can see, here is my message:
  5. I do not in this speech see what you are taking a stand for or against. You state that FTW claims its right to regulate your wars, but they have not done that. You are the people who have externally claimed to regulate the standard "round" into something that it is not with regards to FTW and your ally Kashmir; two external entities. Can you clarify or highlight the specific part of this speech that points out what values you're burning yourselves alive for?
  6. Care to elaborate? If getting rolled over your own stupidity is standing for something than I guess I haven't. Y'all circlejerking about the nobility of not knowing what a round is and fighting an aggressive war over it does not appear to me to be a stand against or for anything.
  7. Is the idea that you are the burning monk here? I don't really see how you "dying in protest" is sending anyone any kind of message.
  8. Disagreeing with how someone does something does not it hypocritical make. The deep irony of you as a TIE member talking about honoring treaties is not lost on anyone here, not even the tumbleweeds.
  9. If it's not a disavowal I'll have to go talk to your daddy.
  10. It isn't a problem at all, who is this a problem for exactly?
  11. If you're going to talk out of your butthole, I will just respond with memes. This format is the gift that keeps on giving! (My former allies in NG disbanded like last year)
  12. We're in the end game now boys.
  13. This was basically my point though. These alliances that were listed are non-political actors with huge NS values. Who knows how many would actually fight, but regardless their side is clear in ANY conflict. I also stressed that the big 3 in Oculus have the power alone to fight the entire rest of the game, as far as I can tell. This is what gives them about 1/3 of the responsibility in our lack of global wars. I agree that there is greater context here, but the justification at the time was due to aid sent to specific nations, and it only later was attributed to senate disagreements. This is of course from my perspective as (at the time) a regular GA member. There may be more info to be had out there, but I'm sure you'll see a common trend here in other conflicts against Oculus. Non-chaining treaties also contribute to the lack of global wars i'm sure, but great fear of being rolled into nothingness is hardly new to most alliances out there. I wasn't trying to say it was a "random conflict", just that this conflict is an example (a random example from me) where I saw how Oculus could harm/hinder global conflict. If Oculus was neutral when Sengoku (and i guess umb?) went to war, maybe we would've seen a global war or at least a bigger war. I'm certain we woulda got rekt by you guys, but I'm saying it is a factor in why these wars didn't happen. Fair enough. My overall point was that if you point your finger at the top twenty, you are right for the three reasons I had laid out. However, your point here makes sense too, and I agree with it. The low tier warlovers could all break into smaller alliances and have their own wars, I guess.
  14. This is just my insight, but I'll let you know how I feel about global politics. I sympathize with the idea that we need something better or stronger, but I don't see how you can point to the top alliances and blaming the whole group. Let's look at political action in the top 20: Of the top twenty: MHA, VE, DT, GPA, KoRT, FAN, Fark, NATO, Sparta, and GLoF have opted for a complete status quo for at least the last two years. These are the alliances you should be pointing to when it comes to "starting a fight", because (once we strike out Sparta, KoRT and GPA) they are reserve NS that are only in play if any of the bigger alliances call them in. They are passive actors. NATO/Fark/MHA/ all have direct ties to Oculus, which innately means they will 99% of the time defend and/or support their allies if called upon. The aforementioned but unlisted politically active nations are also directly tied to Oculus, which means they are also going to support and defend their allies. This means we can only look to Oculus members for action with regard to fracturing the political state and creating the global disorder you want to see. It (Oculus) has a supremacy clause though, so you would need to see it fully dissolved and individual treaties dropped for them to take action. This also includes VE/DT/GloF, who could theoretically pursue relations elsewhere and drop and potentially create spheres or whatever. In order to see such a drop, you would need to witness a very powerful political decision fracturing the bloc and ridding it of its "win button" capabilities, which seems unlikely to impossible. NPO IRON and Polaris hold a lot of power as the chief political actors of Oculus, but they have no reason to fracture relations with one another, from what I can tell externally. Why all the focus on Oculus, you ask? We can see Oculus's innate effect to prevent global war already in the war at hand, where Polaris was totally comfortable entering and activating Oculus on behalf of Kashmir (it appears, or they posture in this manner) while IRON has respectfully avoided tripping it out of respect for Polaris. Perhaps Polaris also has privately or publicly pledged to not activate Oculus in this way, but it isn't apparent to the other political actors on the field (None of which who want the war to expand anyway), that they have this position. If Oculus itself as a bloc had declared neutrality at the start of this minor conflict or any other in the last few years, I believe we would see regional/sub-global wars. We do not see this because of fear of the complete and utter annihilation of our own alliances by our own allies. Take for example, when I was just a lowly GA member in GATO. CoTM was attacked by (I believe) Umbrella and Sengoku rather arbitrarily over aid deals. I opposed this and pressured my government to defend CoTM, but we were assured that Oculus would respond to any direct attacks on itself. We could not defend our ally without fear of our own allies (in Pacifica and Non Grata) from rolling us, and were assured that the swiftest peace for our allies could be earned through diplomacy... This is what I presume has been the historical situation in every Oculus-based war, and it is to be expected out of a monopolar world. I have no qualms with this, and actually am overall supportive of the sort of peace we currently have in the game. I simply do not concur with other players in shifting the blame to non-oculus or directly to Oculus though. Non-Oculus have the ability to attempt to fracture the bloc (which I believe COBRA is attempting with this nonsense war, but failed to do, which is why I now view the war as suicide) and Oculus members have the ability to suspend their supremacy clause and/or declare neutrality at any given conflict or juncture. The most vital political actors are NPO, IRON, and Polaris; these actors power hinges on their own strengths as alliances but not only on the individual level --- it is the requirement that their partners enter alongside them that solidifies this position as beyond anyone. Even if we disclude the non-political actors, treaty ties and all that jazz -- they are together 615 nations with over 68 million NS -- Committed to only their own side of any given conflict, at war with all the other alliances in the game, they would likely win... If we add their other Oculus partners, it reaches 739 nations with a total of over 80 million NS. Should this supremacy clause alone not exist, I believe we would see more global wars, but who do they benefit? Surely not the communities that are active in the top twenty, and wars wouldn't even benefit the inactive ones either. You could point your finger to earlier and say "what about XX time when this happened" but Oculus had an even larger share of high tier nations and active NS at those times. We live in a monopolar world, and it is up to the dynamics in this bloc to determine global peace or global warfare. I made peace with this over time, and I think the majority of the world has as well. I do think it is possible that we see another global war through other means, but I don't see its aftermath as any positive development. In theory, we can blame the passive actors for doing nothing, the non-oculus political actors for not fracturing Oculus, and the Oculus political actors for not declaring neutrality, when it comes to why we no longer see global wars. However, is this a bad thing? Tl;dr peace is good and is unlikely to change unless Oculus fractures or people just decide to hurt themselves. The alliance you're in is suicidal. Is peace all that bad?
  15. Any comment about possible updates, or are resets the only possibilitY?
  16. If there is an underdog, they're the proles, that or the remnants of moralist sphere. The game has lacked global conflict for several years now, so I think it's safe to say that our NWO from the Templarian folk won. Since I've been allied to them the entire time, as have the majority of all remaining playerbase, I guess we "all won" but must live with the dissatisfaction that the game will die without more global conflict or a truly resolute narrative ending. This could of course change, but it depends on how long the game runs and whether people intentionally kill themselves (a la Kash/Cobra and co. right now) or if they try to strive toward some sort of goal.
  17. I too shame new members of our global community. /s/
  18. The game is already brutally out of balance. Hello high tier. The only solutions for Planet Bob as is outside of a steady decline are for a reset to attempt to restart altogether or some content and platform updates which are apparently not up for consideration by admin at all. The last content update was over three years ago.
  19. The Snake Eyes War rages on.
  20. That was just now actually! 🤣 I take it as a sign that Korlaths SDI crew earns their money.
  21. And his alliance affiliation is currently as an accepted member of Kashmir. I'm doing you a favor here, you know?
  22. Kashmir disavowed Jack Layton to me privately. He is being treated as a rogue at this moment. Should his actions be supported by Kashmir, we will recognize hostilities with them which is completely within our rights.
  • Create New...