Editorial: “Not wanting to be in the top ten” or a cover up?

FJORD – After the Nachos dropped to their all time low, not even appearing in the latest top ten, they claimed that they purposely tried to avoid the top ten. But why would an army that was bragging about being first for over a month consistently, want to suddenly avoid being in the top ten? I am going to look into the Nachos situation on the top ten.

Since the top ten, they have had a decent event with sizes of 20-25 and a UK event with a considerable amount of rouges with 20+. The Nachos faced a tough challenge from the Army of CP in the month of March and beat the ACP in the March Madness who maxed 49, the Nachos maxed 52. After the Nachos declared war on the ACP and smashed them down as far as  9th on the CPAC top ten, they lacked competition and have dominated the top ten for over a month in this period. However, the rising army of the Year, HSA, has taken over their spot.

My question is, why would an army that was so cocky and jubilant about dominating the top spot for one or two months suddenly want to not be included? Although they claim to have had decent events that would have placed them in a top five position, is this really true? The Nachos proudly point out that they have never dropped out of the top six, but this record has been removed from them as they dropped out of the top fifteen in one of the biggest crashes in CP Armies (among the likes of the Golden Troops). Wether of not they wanted to be in the top ten or not, the fact is that this is now one of the biggest crashes witnessed. If the Nachos thought that they would still be in the top five or even three, why is this such a big problem? The Nachos have been 6th before and they didn’t feel the need to ask to be excluded from the top ten.

Is the fact that these events were not actually good enough, hitting low sizes that would have put them out of the top six. Is that this ask to pull out of the top ten a cover up for a fall from 50+ to 20+. They did not even show us the pictures of their events after the top ten was made, which shows either a laziness that has taken over the leaders or they in fact had terrible events that they didn’t want us to see. What is the point in not posting the events results, just to not be in the top ten? In Puckley’s Post, he says “so let not even being in it serve as motivation to be in it next week in a position that is up to the Nacho standard”. He says “a position that is up to the Nacho standard”. Does this mean that he feared dropping in the top ten and showing other armies the new weakness of the army? All of this appears to me that the Nachos are trying to hide the fact that they have fell. It has also shown the contradication side of the army, as they made edits and posts stating how they were first on the top ten several times.

What is YOUR opinion on the Nachos dropping out of the top ten? Was this a cover up for a bad week and do they have a valid reason for not wanting to be in the top ten? Comment what YOU think.

-Kingfunks4

50 Responses

  1. thats right

    Like

  2. This post was just bashing the Nachos. This isn’t an ”editorial”, just a flame post in disguise.

    Like

  3. It is pretty big that the Nachos dropped out of the top ten, first time ever. I think it might have just been a cover up. It’s shouldn’t be such a big deal if they get a rank “not fit to Nacho standards”, because that would give them some motivation to do better.

    Like

  4. The Nachos have a history of starting wars as soon as they become the clearly dominant army and then retreating into a corner as soon as they begin to fall in the hopes that no one notices them. I think this is what we’re beginning to see now. HSA wanted to prove they were the true #1 army through a practice battle, but the Nachos failed to show up both times. I think the Nachos opted out of the Top 10 to stay off of HSA’s radar, but it seems as though that is not going to happen. Ironic that the Nachos took no issue with declaring war on an ally (ACP) when they were #1, and yet are so upset now that the their former ally and new #1 (HSA) has declared war on them. Should be a fun war to watch, but I have a feeling the Nachos will do everything possible to get out of it if their first event is not a strong one.

    Like

    • Boomer I couldn’t agree with you more. Also, why is it that Nachos were able to convince CPAC to take them out of the top ten? Everyone keeps on saying that this does not count as the Nachos actually FALLING out of the top ten. However, if this were ACP, the Blue Brothers would automatically put them as low as 10th or even below the top 10. It sort of made me mad, since the Blue Brothers are never that nice to any army. Except if the Nachos are truly out of the top 15, in which case that is acceptable.

      Like

      • The ACP have controlled the media for far too long. Now that they do not, a cold war has begun to brew among the staff, with some posting freely, and others posting for the gain of their home army.

        Like

        • Do you often make up shit and then post it on random sites?

          Like

          • ^
            And @ Coolster vvv
            1). ACP didn’t control the media
            2). Y u no logic?

            Like

            • It is because of Funks. He is far too influential in CPAC, and that is benefiting only ACP.

              Like

              • Honestly it’s funny that you even claim that. Might I remind you that this administration is the administration that:

                1.) Has fired Funks 3+ times
                2.) Has made 5+ editorials ranting about bad decisions the ACP has made
                3.) Allowed a controversial Anti-ACP story to stay on the main page
                4.) Ranked ACP 6th, beginning their first fall
                5.) Ranked ACP 9th in their lowest rating ever

                Keep thinking that. While this may have been true in early 2012, I assure you that all pro-ACP bias is gone, and anyone who claims that is simply living in the past.

                Like

                • I am not stating that this is your fault. What you have done has been great, indeed. Funks, still though, should be stripped off his rights, including those to post, as he abuses his power by making posts such as this one. Even ACP dislike him.

                  Like

                  • I assure you that we’re waiting this one out. I’m still deciding whether or not this is to be kept up, to be honest.

                    Like

          • I advise you then to take off “”Feel free to discuss, debate, and be a part of Army History by sharing your opinions and commenting on our staff’s posts.” from CPAC’s description. Now I advise you to shut your big mouth and respect every viewer the way they are.

            Like

            • Every viewer is free to share their opinions. We’re simply defending our site and clarifying your untrue facts. Just as you are given freedom, we are as well. See how none of your comments have been deleted? Respect isn’t not arguing. Respect is arguing the right way.

              Like

              • Understandable Blue, but noting how the “Nacho top 10 scandal” was never explained to any of the viewers, Blue2 immediately believed that I am supposed to be up to date with classified things like the scandal. Also, I never actually said anything about CPAC, just about the top 10 which has now been nicely clarified by B2 :O

                Like

                • It’s not really classified, it’s been public information and discussed publicly by many. I made the response I made in response to your comment about “removing the part about sharing our opinions from the CPAC About Page”, as I believed it was in response to Blue2. If it was not in response to him, simply disregarding my comment.

                  Like

      • Please see what I said in my statement below.

        Like

    • The fact that when Nachos declared war on ACP without any reason, and now when Dxdzn shows pics of Edd harassing/ making fun of HSA, just shows how low the Nachos truly are.

      Like

    • Oh trust me, the UK division will ensure that our first battle will be strong.

      Like

  5. around the world

    Like

  6. Funks, why make nachos look bad?

    Like

  7. Regarding the Nachos’ removal from the Top Ten:

    I was asked by Puckley to remove the Nachos, to give the army a ‘wake-up call’. I refused, and told him the only way that an army was removed from the Top Ten (outside of banning) was if they had absolutely no events for the week. He (Puckley) then decided to take down the one posted event, in order to secure the Nachos’ fall from the Top.

    So no, the Nachos did not simply command me to remove them persay, they rather manipulated the rules in order to get themselves removed under our guidelines.

    On a further note, I find several issues with this post, which we will discuss at a future date, Funks.

    Like

    • To an extent, the Nachos told the truth about this, however they tried (in a manner I found distasteful) to play it off as completely voluntary and as if they could simply choose to have been put back in at a Top 5 spot at any given time – which was not the case.

      Like

    • Give it up, Funks. There’s a very clear reason why you made this an editorial”.

      So, we ensured you were thrown out of ACP, and you made your little retirement post from CP armies so in a way of throwing your toys out of the pram. That’s your problem, so I dont give a shit about that.

      What angers me, is that you seek revenge for what’s already done with some of the oldest tricks in the book. You are involved in the top 10 which we feel from No. 1, and although you only said you were doing descriptions, I was a little suspicious all the same.

      And now, you seek revenge in an all-out Nacho hate post, clearly seizing the opportunity of an inactive nachos week and the slightest fall to pounce on the army, attempting to rip our credibility to shreds.

      You would manipulate the media and the opinion of the average viewer so it is turned against the nachos? Disgraceful, and pathetic. And don’t reply arguing that what you said in the post was true, I couldnt give a toss about that. This is about you posting about the negative aspects of the nachos on a primary news site. Too soon after the [Down with funks] campaign, funks. it’s only too obvious.

      And I ensure you the Nachos will rise quicker than ever, if only to spite you for the biggest piece of shit I’ve read on a CPAC post in a long time. Rant over.

      Like

      • I would as easily make an editorial about the ACP as the Nachos at the moment. It just so happens that the Nachos have done something which allows me to do so.

        Like

        • Also, the Nachos didn’t have a “slight fall”. They went from 2nd to not even in the top 15. As well as this, the Nachos weren’t in the top ten because they had no events posted.

          Like

        • “the Nachos have done something which allows me to do so.”

          with that statement I believe you have proved my point. You seemed to speak from the point of view that you were WAITING for something to occur so that you could post on it. Interesting.

          Also, the nachos didn’t obviously completely fall, we just had a lack of scheduled events and in the events we did post, we got a lot in a UK event and 25 in a USA event. It just so happened that we didn’t want to be in a Top 10 after that. I’m not arguing for what we did regarding the rules of the top ten to be correct, I’m just saying that it’s fairly obvious that we haven’t fallen, so there’s no need to post in it,

          Like

  8. Chocolate, that’s what we are talking about…. right?

    Like

  9. I never thought of it this way

    Like

  10. Lmao, Nachos just can’t admit they are slipping.

    Like

  11. Speaking from my opinion, I’m not a fan of this post. But it can stay for the time being.

    Like

  12. The way this post was made as a revenge attack is stupid, and selfish.

    Like

  13. I am starting to not like editorials anymore they are just a mask for people on site to bash and express controversial and unwanted opinions

    Like

  14. This isn’t an editorial. Idiots like Funks use their position to their advantage and bash a certain army. This ‘editorial’ bullcrap started back when the BA war was going on. Time for the Blue brothers to control this.

    Like

  15. Hmmm, yeah I believe this is a perfectly non-bashful editorial *wary*

    Like

  16. biased, kill yourself

    Like

  17. Nachos are dying. Leaders are too afraid to admit it. They are going to lose against HSA. Lol Nachos suck.

    Like

  18. I saw a Nacho on IW chat right before an AA division event last night, asking for help against HSA… I wonder if that has to do with this…..

    ~Raven

    Like

  19. Number one in top ten for many weeks
    One week of being inactive
    “OH SNAP THEY’RE GONNA DIE

    Like

  20. Oddly, I just saw this post, but I think we have already proved you wrong with our recent activity and actions. Seeing this post a few days late actually makes me laugh.

    I know what I’m doing, Funks, as do all the other Nacho leaders.

    If you wish for some elaborate answer or reason, I can certainly justify; however, I don’t believe that is necessary, do you? Next time, my friend, I suggest you interview me before you jump to conclusions and blatantly accuse of us something untrue.

    On a completely different note, you take the top ten waaaaay too seriously. It’s not only thing in the world, you know?

    Like

What do YOU think? Comment your opinion!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: