It will be more interesting to read if you progressively imagine petros based on this photo:



In Eclesiar, the world of alliances and communities can be as intricate as real-world diplomacy, if not more so. The challenges are often compounded by the arrogance of certain players, the double standards some apply to suit their agendas, and the lack of maturity that can dominate decision-making and interactions. 

This volatile mix can make navigating these situations uniquely difficult. These patterns, present across many factions, risk alienating players and making the game less enjoyable for those who value strategy and fairness. 

When decisions are driven more by petty conflicts than by a long-term vision, the environment becomes increasingly toxic. This not only discourages players but also undermines the growth of the community.

Eclesiar seems to be steadily approaching a point of no return, just to soften it because I have doubts we haven’t already crossed it. The ongoing issues and lack of action risk ruining what makes the community great. And at the heart of this situation, one figure stands out more than most: Petros.

Talons, buildings and multies

Petros has often emphasized his allegiance to Turkey, treating it as the same military unit and the same country, supporting it no matter what.

However, Turkey’s (a.k.a. same country) consistent rule-breaking has cast a long shadow over his credibility. This includes two notable main points: ByBatu’s cheating record and the multi-building scandal.

About Bybatu, everyone knows he was previously banned in the Alpha server for bot usage, and his history of infractions extends to other e-games. His ban on Day 9 of Eclesiar didn’t surprise anyone, and for many, something that took too long to happen. What truly shocked the community, however, was when we discovered that Bybatu had created a second account on Day 1 and openly used it without hesitation, flouting the rules from the very start.

Another controversy that involved Turkey (a.k.a. same country) was the widespread abuse of multi-accounts to exploit the construction system, giving them an unfair advantage. As usual, Petros’s response was nothing short of theatrical, using one of his famous deflection cards, an old trick in his book. Rather than acknowledge the blatant rule-breaking, he shifted the conversation to talk about banned Lithuanian accounts, as if that was somehow related or relevant to the situation, classic Petros.

At some point, Petros could no longer provide any more arguments to defend Turkey (a.k.a. same country)’s actions, even as he maintained his stance that other countries were not "clean". Simply, petros.

And yes, the multi-account controversy doesn’t end here. One of his main allies during the WWI, Iran, became embroiled in two waves of bans. The second and largest, courtesy of Jack Rafflesia, was particularly significant. Petros, however, dismissed any responsibility for Iran’s actions, stating that he didn’t care about them, despite the fact that Iran was his ally. He also made it clear that we should only complain to him if someone from Talons got banned, a situation that had already occurred, and... well, we all know what his argument was.



Nuclear Weapons

More contradictions. While the WWI NAP was active, he used nuclear weapons against Lithuania, an act of open aggression that directly violated the spirit, if not the explicit terms, of the agreement. And yes, he even dares to say others are forcing wars.

Initially, Petros denied all involvement in the nuclear attack. When confronted with irrefutable evidence, he dismissed the claims as doctored with Photoshop. Once this defense crumbled, he resorted to arguing that launching a nuclear bomb did not constitute a breach of the NAP. Yes boys, an aggression that is not considered an aggression. More details can be found on Gytka’s article: https://eclesiar.com/newspaper/56/article/324

Not to say that he conveniently accused Bulgaria of breaking the NAP over Kavala before the ending of NAP because Greece tried to release the region, conveniently ignoring the point G of NAP stating “Turkey keeps Kavala”, the one he claimed the most during NAP talks.

Small communities and G30

Perhaps the most glaring contradiction lies in Petros’s self-proclaimed support for small communities. 

During peace talks following the WWI event, he strongly advocated for the liberation of Croatian regions, citing the presence of Croatian players in his MU. Yet, in the present day, Petros' new coalition with North Macedonia and Slovenia (two factions far from small) controls Croatia’s primary regions. So, where is the Croatian community he so fervently defended? Or was it just another of his lies?

This pattern is not isolated. Remaining in petros' new coalition (G3 or G30), it’s shocking not to see the presence of Turkey (a.k.a. same country). Or maybe it isn’t, after becoming a much smaller community following widespread bans and the exodus of many players from Talons. And let's be clear, USA offered China to make a new alliance with his Turk-brothers (before the multi scandal), and yes, we never considered that as an option because of our suspicions about turks.

Similarly, other small communities Petros once supported during WWI, such as Albania and Hungary, are now notably absent from his agenda. Whether this is due to his own choice or theirs remains unclear, and, frankly, not particularly important.

Not to mention Ireland, a genuinely small community. Under Portugal, Ireland enjoyed a neutral treaty allowing coexistence. However, Slovenia launched an unprovoked attack on Ireland, supported by Petros, destabilizing a peaceful arrangement and directly contradicting his alleged values.

If this sounds like the speculative musings of a third party, the reality speaks for itself. That’s an opinion from a former Talons member

Even within nations allied to Petros, not all are aligned with the decisions being made in his shadow. Firstly, Slovenia, one of the most criticized nations during and after WWI. The dissatisfaction that once drove Jasko to abandon the country now is followed by Tomo and others. Also in Portugal, a dedicated player has expressed frustration with their nation’s actions under the influence of USA, including the Ireland topic, the use of nuclear weapons against countries that had never posed a threat to Portugal and making other decisions as “puppets” 

 

“Puppets”, the same scenario that Germany faced, after Petros attempted to influence and control German movements just 5 days after he claimed neutrality following the alliance breakup. Where was this so-called neutrality then? 

“Puppets”, the mode Portugal lied and denied Lithuania about using nuclear weapons against them. Sounds familiar, right? Deja vu. 10 days later they became allies again, as if they had never been during that time.

“Puppets”, Brazil breaking his NAP with Sweden because they know there won’t be consequences.

“Puppets”, ASTRA denying to have any will to have wars in Asia (explicitly alleged by Safer to the same countries that made sure to include Japan in WWI NAP and keep all their regions untouched), only to, moments later, ignite one—not just to crush China but also to challenge the mighty India. Let’s not forget their arguments about standing against the bullying of Bosnia and their praise for the NAP from the new Chinese government, only to turn around and do exactly the same thing :D 

Even the admin analyzed the situation of this big alliance and identified all the potential problems for the ecosystem, which go beyond what I mentioned in the introduction or during the article. Unfortunately, no matter how many changes Calderia will made, the outcome will be mostly similar.The problem isn't the game, it's the community.





WWI and the first “reset”

The reality is that the wave of lies didn’t begin in the recent months. It dates back even before the official launch, in the last stages of Beta, when USA informed us that their alliance (USA-Romania-Portugal) would disband, and they intended to start a new scenario. Yet by Day 2 of the official server, Lithuania was already facing the reality (another deja vu). Everything that followed is now history.

In the early stages of the WWI NAP talks, Petros and his allies made numerous statements aimed at presenting themselves as reasonable and fair. Remember the following words for the upcoming events.

As the hours and days progressed, it became clear that these ideals were far from the reality of the negotiations. 

The conversations quickly evolved into a series of demands that had never been part of the discussion. First example was the unexpected inclusion of Zaphorivia for Romania, when the initial claim was simply to keep Odessa. This shift in terms was just the beginning of a broader pattern of changing goals.

Second drastic change was the eventual transformation of the NAP into a global agreement, a possibility partially refused.

Petros had emphasized that these talks were supposed to represent a negotiation between blocks. However, the reality was quite the opposite. Each of his allied nations seemed to have free rein to make their own demands, with no cohesion or collective strategy. This was evident not only for Zaphorivia but also in the later stages of the talks.

The last claim from his “block” came with the final text with all conditions revised multiple times, Petros’ faction introduced new demands yet again, dragging the negotiations into further chaos.

Prior to that:

And yes…


At this point, I will say something. 

You simply had the numbers. There was no realistic way to beat you, and we knew you’d push for the maximum possible demands. Fine. But there was no need to present yourself as some kind of benevolent NGO at the start; you did, and you ended up making a fool of yourself. Fine. At some point, things got out of hand with the addition of more and more demands (a few players on your own side privately admitted it and weren’t proud of it). Fine again. But there were ways to act that crossed into even more extreme territory.

Because of attitudes like this, and everything I’ve mentioned this article, I have one question: do you honestly believe anyone will even want to talk or negotiate with you after all this behavior? Except the **** ofc. For some, I imagine being wiped would feel like the better option, if not quit.

Conclusion

I come from a game where I’ve seen it all: cheats, betrayals, and unexpected twists. So, in many ways, these behaviors and contradictions don’t shock me as much. What really frustrates me, though, is that Eclesiar has just begun. This is a game with incredible potential, yet some people like petros seem determined to rush its downfall.


“Any man who tries to be good all the time is bound to come to ruin among the great number who are not good.”

― Niccolò Machiavelli, The Prince