A question for H?

We treat this as a game too but there is responsibility that goes with leadership, it entails keeping records to prevent wholesale slaughter of foes and since we set limits, we kept records; we were true to our word.    How cavalier that you don't feel responsible for destroying years of work and the money players have invested in "their" game.     I wonder if you will have the same attitude when the roles are reversed, remember you helped to change the precedent in this game.  :)

As a practicioner of ISO9001 International Standards Organisation accreditation for Quality Assurance i can assure that at work i am a meticulous record keeper and auditor. Again leadership comes in various styles, and to chastise someone for differing in opinion seems to be a touch wrong. If we were all identical to H? we would truly be farmville.

But back to the original question, has every opponent in every war surrender to H?

I apologize for derailing the question over a point of disagreement.  There is no reason for either side to condescend.  I am unable to answer the question, but perhaps another can if they feel so inclined. 

That's not what your NSGA Alliance said about NC...

What H? conveniently neglects to mention in their record keeping is that in the previous wars that I remember, we never got to this stage - their major opponents had surrendered or left the game long before. Whatever the reasons for this, why their opponents surrendered and H? hasn't - that is open to interpretation. The fact remains that H? still chooses to continue in the fight.