I figured your last post was 5 posts ago, but I see you are following in the footsteps of Al. Poor guy, he was also never good at letting things go.See, what you call there TEA's failure cause we didnt hug another big tribe to fight on our side, i call it hugging, and i dont call it failure, i call it balls. ( i don't say i would have done this diplo, i am just saying how i see it). Ripping tribes from inside is not impressive, you are correct, but i never mentioned it as being impressive, so, dont trying to mess my words.
A skirmish, as u call it, close to Bip tribe and that you have with an elephant, as you called Infamy, it has implications, my dear, and should be mention aswell.
Anyway, too many calories lost already typing for externals..your analyze is incomplete in my opinion, but thx a lot for putting up an effort. Hopefully next time will be less biased.
Now, to make you feel better, i appreciate posts like yours more than some stupid trollings.
I call it failure because TEA have shown themselves willing to use the tools in the playbook, yet only apply them in particular cases. Honour? Balls? TEA has none of those things, never have, never will, a tiger can't change its stripes. Not to say it is a bad thing at all, it is just the way the game is played. that being said, it is illogical in my mind to be willing to destroy a tribe from the inside say, but then not willing to hug a rim tribe to allow you to focus on BiP. That inconsistency of approach suggests to me that TEA failed to get those agreements though I could be wrong.
The implications are simple, whoever Infamy chooses to join will probably win due to considerable size advantage and the gangbanged tribe having to deal with a very large front. I might have not mentioned it overtly, but I assumed it was pretty obvious that the gangbang would tip the balance to one side.