SA, FTW and HIV against a list of factions: a territory-war thread, October 2016
A Graveyard-board thread from October 2016 framed a territory beta fight as SA, FTW and HIV against many factions. JFK members disputed it with attack counts, and officers joined the banter.
Involved: Z_junior [247674] , Midknight [332505] , SuperBeast [340191] , critch [507888] , mug [553318] Committee and 6 more
A thread with a long title
SuperBeast [340191] started the thread "SA/FTW/HIV vs JFK, JFK 2.1, MnC, PT, PT-I, DA + DB" on 02 Oct 2016. The title named three factions on one side and a long list on the other.[1]
The thread ran to 27 Oct 2016. It reached 281 replies and 5,708 views, 81 players posted in it, and it is now locked and sits in the Graveyard board.[1]
Territories in beta
critch [507888] wrote that the fight was part of a beta and that the point of the beta was to test the system. mug [553318], an officer, also called it a beta.[2][3]
Penicillin [1517799], an officer, wrote on 03 Oct 2016 that the territories system would produce "super-alliances" when it suited the factions involved. They added that factions would gang up on each other and that players had best get used to it.[4]
Dueling counts of who attacked whom
Z_junior [247674] wrote that in the last 24 hours their faction's attack logs showed 17 attacks on JFA, 14 on SA, 8 on PT and 3 on MnC. They said the only person who had attacked SA had moved to JFA 50 minutes before the thread was created. Participant claim[5]
Z_junior asked for the title and posts naming JFK to be corrected. They warned that if JFK was accused of warring SA, the poster would get a proper war with them.[5]
Midknight [332505] wrote that SA had been in territorial battles with the "whatever alliance" for the last 3 days. They said the complaints about JFA started after SA was hit by a DB, and that 89 members of SA were under 85-99% radiation. Participant claim[6]
Midknight also wrote that before the thread, the only JFK main members they had seen make visible attacks were Deft and Takitz. Later they posted a run of their attack log entries and said they saw no JFA in it. Participant claim[6][7]
critch wrote that it was really SA/FTW against the whole list of factions, and that SA had gained ground since the bomb. They also claimed the other side was using fake sieges to block bridges. Participant claim[2]
Officers, moderators and banter
mug wrote that they did not know they had warred SA, and had only seen FTW, MM and HIV attacking. They said SA should be removed from the title "unless you include crying as part of warring these days".[8]
mug followed with jokes about SA crying, including a mock news headline and a claim that there was no crying on their own end. They also alleged that the other side had sent many fake reports on Cartman over a DB and many crying PMs, and had accused the committee of abuse. Allegation[3][9]
In another post mug wrote: "damn, you legit take the cake for torns dumbest and most delusional player." The post does not show who it was aimed at.[10]
mutley [588278], a forum moderator, wrote that they enjoyed warring JFK, called the thread "fuelled by bullshit" and wrote: "If you want a war lets organise one. Let's make it fair."[11]
daCampa [169777] called the thread "Cheap propaganda from cheap people" and said FTW and Helvetes had attacked them more often than SA. They also wrote that the downvote complaints "work both ways".[12][13]
Kate [1701775] asked for no flaming or trolling, then wrote that the fight had "escalated quickly". They said JFA members were downvoting posts from other factions.[14][15]
MarlonBrando [1337797] posted mocking messages at JFA on 05 and 06 Oct 2016. They said JFA attacked SA after it lost 99% of its stats and "takes no guts at all". Both posts drew more dislikes than likes. Participant claim[16][17]
Locked at the end of October
On 27 Oct 2016 SuperBeast asked the forum admins to lock the thread. The archive shows it as locked.[1][18]
Timeline
- 2 Oct 2016 SuperBeast starts the thread; Z_junior, Midknight, critch, mug, mutley and daCampa post the same day.[1][5][11]
- 3 Oct 2016 Penicillin writes that the territories system will make for "super-alliances".[4]
- 5 Oct 2016 MarlonBrando begins posting mockery aimed at JFA.[16]
- 27 Oct 2016 SuperBeast asks for the thread to be locked; it is the last post.[1][18]
Original sources 18
- Thread "SA/FTW/HIV vs JFK, JFK 2.1, MnC, PT, PT-I, DA + DB" (Graveyard) ·
- Post by critch [507888] in "SA/FTW/HIV vs JFK, JFK 2.1, MnC, PT, PT-I, DA + DB" ·
- Post by mug [553318] in "SA/FTW/HIV vs JFK, JFK 2.1, MnC, PT, PT-I, DA + DB" ·
- Post by Penicillin [1517799] in "SA/FTW/HIV vs JFK, JFK 2.1, MnC, PT, PT-I, DA + DB" ·
- Post by Z_junior [247674] in "SA/FTW/HIV vs JFK, JFK 2.1, MnC, PT, PT-I, DA + DB" ·
- Post by Midknight [332505] in "SA/FTW/HIV vs JFK, JFK 2.1, MnC, PT, PT-I, DA + DB" ·
- Post by Midknight [332505] in "SA/FTW/HIV vs JFK, JFK 2.1, MnC, PT, PT-I, DA + DB" ·
- Post by mug [553318] in "SA/FTW/HIV vs JFK, JFK 2.1, MnC, PT, PT-I, DA + DB" ·
- Post by mug [553318] in "SA/FTW/HIV vs JFK, JFK 2.1, MnC, PT, PT-I, DA + DB" ·
- Post by mug [553318] in "SA/FTW/HIV vs JFK, JFK 2.1, MnC, PT, PT-I, DA + DB" ·
- Post by mutley [588278] in "SA/FTW/HIV vs JFK, JFK 2.1, MnC, PT, PT-I, DA + DB" ·
- Post by daCampa [169777] in "SA/FTW/HIV vs JFK, JFK 2.1, MnC, PT, PT-I, DA + DB" ·
- Post by daCampa [169777] in "SA/FTW/HIV vs JFK, JFK 2.1, MnC, PT, PT-I, DA + DB" ·
- Post by Kate [1701775] in "SA/FTW/HIV vs JFK, JFK 2.1, MnC, PT, PT-I, DA + DB" ·
- Post by Kate [1701775] in "SA/FTW/HIV vs JFK, JFK 2.1, MnC, PT, PT-I, DA + DB" ·
- Post by MarlonBrando [1337797] in "SA/FTW/HIV vs JFK, JFK 2.1, MnC, PT, PT-I, DA + DB" ·
- Post by MarlonBrando [1337797] in "SA/FTW/HIV vs JFK, JFK 2.1, MnC, PT, PT-I, DA + DB" ·
- Post by SuperBeast [340191] in "SA/FTW/HIV vs JFK, JFK 2.1, MnC, PT, PT-I, DA + DB" ·
Forum sources link to TornLife's archive of the thread, shown as the players wrote it; each archived thread links on to the original on torn.com.
How to read a story
Every statement in a Torn Story is checked against the archived posts it cites. Statements without a label are established: the record shows them directly. Everything else is labelled and says who is speaking.
- Established
- The record shows it directly: a post and its date, staff's own words, a thread's figures or TornLife data.
- Participant claim
- What someone involved said about their own actions or experience. Their account, not verified.
- Allegation
- An accusation a player made, attributed to them. Never TornLife's finding.
Generated by TornLife from 18 sources · verified · model claude-sonnet-5
Drafted by a language model from the archived posts listed above, then checked three ways before publication: TornLife's validator (every number and citation must match the sources), deterministic statement rules (no unlabelled allegation, no real-world personal details, no claims about why anyone was federally jailed) and a separate critic and fact-checker that read each statement against its sources. It reports what players said; it is not Torn's own statement.