[quote poster=Tertius; 52766; 1037148]BH and Drow: I think partially this can be explained due to how politics and pacting have changed over the years (decades??). In the old days, most groups did not pact everyone. They might leave it open to their players grabbing good targets, knowing it could escalate, but the war groups almost never pacted out - they were looking for a war, and if you did not get that pact, you were uneasy most of the set.

Over the years, netters in particular tried to be very diplomatic and pact out as many as they could. In the current state, with the reduced server counts and bots, people have a lot more reason to pact because there's no grabbing benefits and I'd argue that wars where both sides are ready is a lot more entertaining and prevents further loss of players. Of course, there are certainly grudge wars - we've seen some recently but they have always been around, including in the old days where you would finally pact your enemy after three sets and then their ally would war you for another three sets.

All that said, I think M4D was looking to add a little bit more spice into the server, but probably didn't have any specific plans initially. [NB: I'm not privy to any knowledge about M4D at all, and may have an optimistic view of their goals.] Similarly, SoL is probably always interested in a war, and so kept that option open. I could even imagine that with M4D being the new largest tag all of a sudden that some of the war clans wanted to see "what they're made of" so to speak - we see that commonly on other servers. Tag protection is not given, it's earned, for a new group.

Given M4D's large size, and the fact that there hasn't been a real war recently (mostly griefers), probably a lot of people were interested - and it looks like SoL and co had fairly even numbers at the start (probably 2 less?). If Mercs was really keen on breaking a pact or bullying M4D, they could have tagged over more than 7 (they still have 8). I think people just wanted a good fight, and given the recent expertise on the SoL side, they probably could've gone in a little less heavy, but if they were 7 less in numbers and lost, people probably wouldn't remember that they gave up an advantage, just that they lost (and then a war would likely happen the next set with more numbers).

TL;DR: This is all just musings, but mostly to say that I think most probably took this as it was meant to be - in the spirit of the game, enjoying the side of war that both sides were open to (based on forum posts and choice in pacts). It seemed like a number of people had fun (and certainly learned a lot on the M4D side) but that some vets aren't cut out for war anymore (I know I'm not). It'll be interesting if they pact out next set or both want to try again with the new knowledge gained from this set. For whatever reason, best of 3 sets is a common occurrence. [/quote]

Including the 7 mercs that tagged over, SoL had 25 to M4D's 31 and were planning for the FS.

M4D got the jump but messed up imo with the AB FS.
Stones then jumped in, making it 36-31 in Sol's favour, after SoL had already negated the numbers advantage with, I think, 5 kills in the CS. (So effectively it was 36-26 once stones joined)

It's been mentioned by SJ at least, and I believe other M4D leadership publicly that they attempted to pact SoL at the start of the set, and SoL people have mentioned that they weren't going to pact M4D because TC is there. (If my memory serves me correctly)



I've broken down very clearly why I would be pissed.
It's bad faith pacting, plain and simple.
Further, if I pact someone, I try to act with the spirit of the pact in mind, not just the letter.

Again, when we tag shifted, I made sure to reach out immediately to keep people informed.

When I was asked by M4D to police, I also reached out to SoL to offer to police for them too.

We have stayed completely out of the fight, because we were pacted to all sides, because that's the simple respect of honouring pacts. Even with your offer to "overlook" any countries who wanted to tag jump into M4D.

Not because some of us didn't want to, but because we respect our pacted allies more than that.

I've also told you very clearly that what my personal opinions are, and what my policy for my alliance is, are two different things, and I have acted with the best interest of Paradigm in mind consistently regardless of my own personal opinions.

Now, for someone who has specifically said he to hear me speak my mind, you seem to suddenly be unhappy that I am doing so.

As I said, I like you, but I'm not afraid to speak up.

I said I was making a point of dealing squarely, this is a part of it, warts and all.

No no, I'm not asking why you WOULD be pissed, I'm asking why you ARE pissed.


I get why you would be pissed IF you were M4D. They got owned. I understand why anyone there would be upset.


I'm asking why YOU, specifically YOU, right now, care? You have nothing to do with M4D. So why do you care about their failed FS, or the fact that their bad politics ended up with them being in a war as the smaller side, despite the fact that they were the biggest alliance to start the server.


Why do you care, at all, about that? Your concern for another alliances politics is confusing to me, given that you are completely neutral to both sides.

Why do you care why he cares? What he thinks in his personal capacity doesn't reflect the actions of Paradigm, which has remained neutral and impartial.

If you're just morbidly curious why he personally cares...you're making a big deal out of nothing. Just move on.

you're moving the goalposts subtly there BH. I'll give you credit for that attempt.

Coalie asked, as per the quote, "Why would I be pissed?"
I spelled it out quite clearly.

in terms of whether I actively AM pissed at present, no, I am quite chill.

As for my speaking up, I have been consistent in that.
No different to calling out Cathankins and Josey's stuff, including their playing victim last set, and then their complaining this set when they got belted for suiciding evo.
I distinctly don't recall hearing you question why I cared about that though, funnily enough.

Drow,

I don’t appreciate you pushing and attempting to bully my clan leader around in a private message. He’s not like Doug where you can take him out back to shank him. His decisions made didn’t even affect you or PDM.

You mess with DD, you will have to go thru Symba and I first. We’re not gonna let you disrespect and bully our clan leader around.

I like you too man but don’t make it hard for me bro, I ain’t tryna pick a fight.

I care because I'm aware of several conversations that have taken place with regards to PDM and their support for M4D. In particular, next set.

I care because I think PDM is an excellent alliance that Drow has inherited leadership of, and the value of them to this community is overlooked. PDM continuing to be apolitical is valuable because I think people need a place they can go net without fear of getting dragged into a war.

That seems to be in jeopardy, based on what I've been seeing.

Ok, so you were pissed past tense. If not pissed, you at least cared enough to message DD and 'complain', or 'question' the SoL tag hoppers.


In short - why would somebody who is 100% neutral, reach out to another alliance leader and confront them about actions that don't concern their alliance?


I cannot see ANY reason why the head of PDM would reach out to the head of Mercs about a situation involving Mercs, SoL, and M4D, unless they were not actually fully neutral.



Drow - you're a smart guy, clearly. But I think you can acknowledge we ALL know what is going on here. You have close ties to Leto. You've acknowledged as much. I think it's very easy to see why you were concerned about the tag hoppers. It's cause you care about PDM and Leto.


And that's TOTALLY FINE! No one is saying you can't care about your old alliance-mates. No one is going to be pissed that you ARE biased, and that you AREN'T totally neutral.



I'm just asking that you stop insulting everyone's intelligence with this lie that you are 100% neutral. You aren't. Obviously.

We were asked for a pact as soon as Symba let M4D know they had 72hrs left, not prior. Denied

Oof - there goes the narrative that M4D didn't want to bully SoL and that they were the victims in all of this.

haha

this.

times and formulas changed and over the years of ruthless long wars, and grinding out battles of attrition, some damn good warmods and strategists were formed.

target selection, particularly early in wars is so important in this version of the game with the numbers where they are. if you run into a few countries walling or kill a few countries that were not even impactful in the war, that is enough to tilt the outcome of the war by day 3 or 4 of the war.

furthermore, some of the tactics to garner those kills on the high priority targets and knowing when/how to employ them was learned over years of many lost and some won battles. a lot of the learned skills were learned just experimenting with ideas during the long drawn out wars.

If someone will do it to one alliance, whats to stop them doing it to others?
It's a bad look, and that's exactly what I said.
Hell, I'll even make the screen grabs public, I have nothing to hide.
I've stated my stance repeatedly publicly on AT as well.

Fair enough. I was told they approached you at start of set.

Once again, I did NOT attempt to bully DD.
I messaged him because I believe it's a bad look for Mercs to have people tag hop specifically for an FS SoL were preppping for.


In terms of not trying to start a fight, I'm not convinced. I've told you repeatedly that I wasn't trying to bully anyone, and I immediately apologised to DD upon learning he'd been away fighting fires.

Right now you're definitely prodding.
BH is as well, but i kinda expect that.

If I was attempting to bully, I'd have simply told you straight up to not bother asking for a pact from us next set.
I believe talking to someone directly about something is the better option, so that's what I did.

If people decide to FS Paradigm because *I* directly spoke to a fellow alliance leader about something that could be seen badly by all other alliance leaders, that's on them, not me.

I am curious though. I spoke up about it to DD directly, because I didn't want to make a massive fuss out of things by posting on AT directly. Would we rather that we just make a giant circus from the outset in future?

Every set, it seems that "paradigm is going to get hit".

I'm sorry I won't back down from my stance on behaviour being fluffty because you're going to try and vaguely threaten me.

Yes, I intend for Paradigm to be a Switzerland of the server, staying out of things where possible.
But, I'll also speak up where I believe it's warranted, without fear or favour.

So what are you saying, Drow? You preparing PDM for war?


You think it's a bad look what Mercs did. You confronted Mercs about it. You're obviously concerned, despite the fact that M4D PURPOSEFULLY did not pact SoL, while attempting to pact every other alliance. You're overlooking their obvious aggression here, and ignoring the fact that they are the ones that actually attacked first.



You know what I think is a bad look? I think it's a bad look for M4D to make a declaration post about how much they are gonna land grab everyone else. But then specifically and purposefully seek pacts with only some alliances, hoping to divide and conquer the others. Then during the set they make a series of blunders where they attack other, smaller, alliances over and over.


It seemed pretty clear to anyone who was watching, and if I remember correctly I called it at the very beginning of the set, that M4D was planning on warring either Rage, Stones, or SoL. If they weren't, why would they pact all the other alliances except those three? They didn't even try, as we've found out.


Drow, while you're concentrating on the fact that someone told you that SoL was preparing to fight M4D, you're ignoring the fact that the preparation occurred in response to the OBVIOUS intent for M4D to war SoL/Stones/Rage. And the fact that they'd hit multiple players previously in the set. Including me, unprovoked, when I was a solo player.




To put it in simpler terms, this is how I see what occurred.

M4D made declarations. M4D prepared for war. SoL knew M4D was coming for them, so they prepared in response, including swelling their ranks. M4D didn't like that SoL was making the fight slightly closer to even, and so they tried to get an advantage with a first strike.



In your mind though, this was SoLs fault? And you're going to blame Mercs and DD for this? Gimme a break.



Just admit the truth already. You're biased. You wish your boy Leto and his alliance would have won. And now you're trying tot figure out how to support him in the future, including politically giving people a hard time over things that have NOTHING to do with your alliance.


I feel really bad for PDM right now. Do you have the support of your members to engage in what your engaging in? You've been in charge of PDM for how long now, 70% of one set? And you're already on the brink of war?

As long as TC is in leadership for M4D i will NEVER pact with M4D. There's a specific reason why i didn't respond to a pact with M4D i make no apologies.

[quote poster=Aphrodite777; 52766; 1037361]

As long as TC is in leadership for M4D i will NEVER pact with M4D.

And you were doing SO well for a second there.
Now again, with the false claims and allegations against me personally, for the second time this set.
Remember when you were claiming that I was "definitely planning to join M4D" in farming people this set?
How did that play out?

as for your other comments.

1. No, I am not preparing Paradigm for war. Should I be expecting people to break pact and attack us?

2. M4D were not war prepping from the outset, half their players barely even remembered how to play. (but don't let the truth get in the way of a good story, you gotta play up the "sol are the victims in all this" card) They also weren't actively preparing to war, but good try.


3. Yes, you were warned prior to set that you specifically were going to get wrecked because of your running your mouth that M4D were all actively cheating, what did you expect? That they'd pretend nothing happened?

4. M4D were planning to play the way earth used to be played. Where alliances DIDN'T pact everyone out and just hit bots (because bots didn't exist in the first place). It means land grabs, and hoping that the expected retal/s didn't come out to more than your initial hit, or that even better, the retal bounced.

5. Maybe, just maybe, some of the paranoia on that side of the fence needs to settle a little.

6. It has something to do with my alliance. If someone is willing to do something like that to one alliance what's to stop them from doing it to others?
It's the same reason I have been working on rebuilding Paradigm's rep after the mess of last set.
We suffered so much reputation damage out of that, that I had to actively reassure people with our tag and leadership change that we were not looking to avoid pacts, and even then, it was still believed that we would breach/void pacts, to the point that there was a plan waiting and ready to go to hit us "when" we did. (note, when, not if)

7. I'm not blaming Mercs or DD for anything. I brought it up to DD that it was, and I will quote my own message to DD here "bad optics for mercs because it could be seen as pact avoidance". That's not bullying, it's not trying to accuse, or anything else, it's straight honesty. They signed a pact, then half their tag tag jumped to SoL.


Then of course, everyone was surprised because *gasp* I actually believe in honouring pacts to both the spirit and the letter of the pact.
Anyone who knows me at all would have known that honouring our pacts is EXACTLY what I would do.

With that, and with the greatest respect, you can take your attempts to besmirch me, your attempts to make false claims about mine and my alliances intentions, and bash them right up your arse. Sideways sir.

As for your comments about wishing Leto had won:
Yeah, I wish that they had a better showing than they did.
It is what it is though.

Personally, I'd have done two major things differently.

1. I would have allowed SoL to have the FS, and simply made sure I had as many people online as possible when they launched the FS, in an attempt to wall and mitigate damage.
(even knowing that Stones was likely to join in regardless of who launched the FS, and leaving me outnumbered)

2. I absolutely wouldn't have launched an AB FS.

Drow - you claim I am making up facts, while blatantly doing so yourself.



Let's start with your point #3.

I was warned by NO ONE that I was going to be attacked. And if by running my mouth, you mean exposing the cheaters in your alliance.... welp. Sorry bro, sucks to suck.

I love that you are claiming knowledge about M4D warning me of attacking me, when you aren't in M4D, and you aren't me. How would you even know this information? I'm sensing a trend here, and the trend is you claiming knowledge, or sticking your head into situations, you have nothing to do with.


Moving on.

#4. Again, why are you speaking for M4D? Why are you defending them here? Why are you doing propaganda and damage control? They've got SJ, Empy, Leto, and TC. And I known they've all been strangely absent around these parts later, but those are the leaders in M4D. Not you. So why are you trying to be the P.R. department for an alliance you're not in?


#2. These are the facts. M4D announced intention to hit others. M4D purposefully didn't pact SoL/Stones. But they went out of their way to aggressively pursue pacts with everyone else. And we are supposed to believe that's just an accident, and was not an intention move? Come on.


#1. I have no idea who is preparing to attack PDM. I'm not involved in any discussions, I'm just Blackhole. The one who sheds light on situations that need light. I would suspect no one wants to war PDM. And I'd also suspect PDM doesn't want to war, which is why there is so much chatter from within PDM about what is happening.


#6 - I agree, it does have something to do with your alliance. Your splintered alliance in M4D got crushed. And I think someone in M4D went crying to you about it.





Good chat though, Drow. I think we've all made the points we need to make.

UPDATE:

M4D: 6,354 hits, 18 kills, 353 HPK

SoL: 11,059 hits, 38 kills, 291 HPK, 3792 defends, 6 deaths, 632 HPD
Stones: 2145 hits, 3 kills, 715 HPK, 2562 defends, 12 deaths, 214 HPD

Combined: 13,204 hits, 41 kills, 322 HPK

Warned by no one?
Jouster specifically put it in writing, on AT, that they were going to fluff you up this set, before the set even started. I've linked to it previously. Are you really claiming you have that short a memory?
And by "Running your mouth", I mean specifically that you accused the entirety of M4D of cheating over the actions of ONE player in Teams, not in Alliance, and for which he was removed from Paradigm in alliance for regardless.


You just made claims about people planning to hit Paradigm. let me quote you:
"I care because I'm aware of several conversations that have taken place with regards to PDM and their support for M4D. In particular, next set.

I care because I think PDM is an excellent alliance that Drow has inherited leadership of, and the value of them to this community is overlooked. PDM continuing to be apolitical is valuable because I think people need a place they can go net without fear of getting dragged into a war.

That seems to be in jeopardy, based on what I've been seeing. "

You're telling me that's not a claim about people planning to hit us?

You ask why I'm "speaking up for M4D". Why are you speaking up for Mercs?

Further, how is my calling out the spin that you're putting out any different from my speaking up for mercs and calling out the spin that cathankins and josey tried putting out about mercs, and later evo?

If anything, it demonstrates 100% consistency on my behalf.

You also just directly contradicted yourself with your responses in points #4 and #6.
Firstly you say that Paradigm is not a part of M4D, then claim in #6 that we ARE a part. make your mind up.

You're getting back off the rails again.


Lastly, Aphro's posts and WeeZy's post somewhat seem to contradict each other, at least to me.
Aphro's does however, confirm what I had heard previously in terms of SoL refused to pact specifically because of TC, which is ABSOLUTELY their right, and TBH, I agree with.
I'm not a TC fan either.

Short form:
Come on Blackhole, you can troll better than this, you and I both know it.
0/10 effort on this one.

I'm not asking you to apologise hun. Personally, I agree with that decision.
I'm not a fan of TC either.

Man, this thread was better when it was stats.

Drow don't press me bro. I like you and you are starting to push me around. We don't come to your house and disrespect your family, I don't understand why you would not afford us the same etiquette.


You stated you didn't attempt to bully DD but from what I've seen, thats exactly why you did. You said he was "shtty" for his decisions that he made. He does not need to seek your approval for every decision he makes for his own clan. Just because you are unhappy with something doesn't mean you can come at us like the way you did, especially when it had nothing to do with you.

Just because we're a smaller clan in comparison to PDM does NOT mean we are weak. We're not gonna get pushed around bro.

Coalie.
That is NOT what I said to DD at all.
You know it, and I know it.

In fact, let me quote EXACTLY what I said to DD about it.

"Drowakm — 05/20/2024 7:56 AM
Hey man, you just had a bunch of your guys tag sol?

Drowakm — 05/20/2024 9:33 AM
Well, given M4D just FS'd sol, I guess it doesn't matter now 😛
Not great optics for mercs, it could be seen as deliberate pact avoidance is all.

Drowakm — 05/20/2024 9:36 AM
I am PDM.
Just making observations in general.
I know if it happened to us, that an alliance I was pacted to had a bunch of members jump to a tag I had a fair idea was prepping to hit me, that I'd be seriously unimpressed too. "

Tell me where there, I said he was fluffty?
In fact, the only point in the entire conversation, where I used the word "fluff" at all, was the following, when I apologised got bugging him because he was out fighting fires, as below:
"Drowakm — 05/20/2024 10:14 AM
fluff, stay safe man, didn't realise.
I'm so sorry for disturbing you with secondary stuff :)"

There is NO attempt to bully DD there, or none intended. merely an attempt to express diplomatically, that it's not a cool move.

Now please. Stop prodding me.

Drow you are seriously pressing me hard now. You were not diplomatic at all, you made it "sound" like you were but from what you posted you definitely and DELIBERATELY tried to push him around. You also conveniently left you how you had a partner when the both of you tried to push DD into a corner. I can understand the other guy, but you?

you were right about one thing though "Well, given M4D just FS'd sol, I guess it doesn't matter now".

but then you continued to push him around with your unsolicited opinions and observations to further disrespecting him.

I don't appreciate the hostility towards us man.

[quote poster=Aphrodite777; 52766; 1037363]


What if I recruit TC to join SoF when we make our comeback next set? ;)

Drow, I'm saying a lot of people within pdm think you all are going to attack somebody, not the other way around.


I think you know this already though. You're a smart guy, you are just acting dumb.

👍

detah?

What partner coalie?
I spoke to DD, and as soon as I found out he was out fighting fires, I stopped, and immediately apologised for bothering him
I did NOT push him around. Stop talking out of your arse.
Btw, if I was going to push someone around, it would go more along the lines of
"Pull a stunt like that again, don't bother pacting us ever again"
I haven't said that at any point.
I told you before, I deal squarely.

If anything, this seems so far like a blatant attempt by you to publicly push Paradigm around, with the thinly veiled threats and poorly spun accusations.

For someone who "doesn't want to start anything, you're certainly doing a damn good job of pushing it.
Understand me clearly.
I like you.
I am aiming to keep Paradigm as neutral as possible.
That doesn't mean you can attempt to push us around.
That includes attempting to tell me when I can and can't say something, in private, to a fellow alliance leader (an alliance you're not even currently in I might add, by your own admission) in regards to something that is absolutely terrible looking.
I've had you threaten me with war over tAN, I've had you attempt to dictate to me who Paradigm can and can't be friends with, and now because I approached DD in private about something, which I have defended publicly as well, and which, when you're called out about bullfluffting and claiming I called DD fluffty, you threaten me over again.
Stop. plain and simple.



"a lot of people within pdm" talk to you do they?
lol
righto mate.

Drow you’re really starting to test me bro

First you attempt to bully my clan leader,

Now you’re accusing and insulting me of being disloyal to my own crew? How we internally reinforce our Allies is none of your concern, even if you think it’s “terrible looking”. We can’t be needing to seek your approval when we do something. In fact, you should commend me on being proactively defending our Allie’s instead of insulting me

And you’re falsely accusing me of threatening you? I said we’re not gonna get pushed around by you, you are the aggressor.

When did I say I wanted to war you over tan? If I wanted to war you, I wouldn’t tell you.

Drow I like you man but you’re really starting to get under my skin. You’re really making things difficult for everyone.

All of you need to stfu......the war has started, if you want to call it a war, and all your whiny BS is water under the bridge.

I asked Drow for the backstory conversation with DD, and he sent me screenshots of their convo. If you think that's "bullying", then you're about as smart as Cathy.

And BH why are you speaking on behalf of DD? If DD thinks it's bullying, and that's what he told you, then let DD speak up.

DD, can you tell us if you felt bullied by Drow?

Edited

Drow actually skipped a part, probably for brevity. Right above the "I am PDM" comment, there's this bit:

-----
DarkDemon (05/20/2024 9:34am)
From what
Are you not pdm
Or are you M4D?

-----
Drow was saying he's in PDM in response to DD asking.

Thanks TAN for clarifying

Do you doubt me? Shall we talk about what happened to your predecessors, and how they also claimed I didn't have any proof or contacts or info from within PDM?

Go talk to your buddy Leto about how that worked out.



Ultimately, Drow. It doesn't matter if you believe me or not. And I don't know why we are arguing with each other, if I'm being quite honest.


I'm hopeful that you actually won't lead PDM into war. I don't think anyone wants that outside of M4D. I don't know what you truly want though, all I can do is read the tea-leaves. Which is why I asked the questions I asked.

What kind of tea?

Futili-tea.

That's a good one!

nah, I think it was mendaci-tea.

Y’all’s puns are missing subtle-tea.

Okay I’ll see myself out.

Haha nice one vettiv!