Play Now Login Create Account
illyriad
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Game Off
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedGame Off

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345 10>
Author
Mr Damage View Drop Down
Postmaster
Postmaster
Avatar

Joined: 01 Jan 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 598
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Oct 2011 at 10:03
Only one person knows the truth for sure.
Back to Top
Anjire View Drop Down
Postmaster
Postmaster
Avatar

Joined: 18 Sep 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 688
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Oct 2011 at 09:34
I will weigh in with information from a source I trust:

According to her, MoreBlue4U had left Illyriad (roughly 4 or 5 months) and came back just to get in a few licks on specific H? players.  MoreBlue4U's actions had nothing to do with defending a friend and everything to do with a drive by revenge shooting...






Back to Top
nightfury View Drop Down
Greenhorn
Greenhorn
Avatar

Joined: 23 Jun 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 86
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Oct 2011 at 09:17
Originally posted by fluffy fluffy wrote:

Originally posted by Sgt..Shanks Sgt..Shanks wrote:

Originally posted by Rill Rill wrote:

StJude, I believe people are attacking Blue because he joined an alliance for a war, attacked siege camps, then sought to avoid consequences for his actions by leaving that alliance.  You may not agree with it as a reason, but it is a reason.



 Why do you all call DEFENSE, attacking?
Breaking a siege IS NOT an ATTACK!



to break a siege, don't you have to attack it?



Attack is best defence Wink
Back to Top
fluffy View Drop Down
Forum Warrior
Forum Warrior
Avatar

Joined: 02 Mar 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 335
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Oct 2011 at 08:57
Originally posted by Sgt..Shanks Sgt..Shanks wrote:

Originally posted by Rill Rill wrote:

StJude, I believe people are attacking Blue because he joined an alliance for a war, attacked siege camps, then sought to avoid consequences for his actions by leaving that alliance.  You may not agree with it as a reason, but it is a reason.



 Why do you all call DEFENSE, attacking?
Breaking a siege IS NOT an ATTACK!



to break a siege, don't you have to attack it?

Back to Top
Ander View Drop Down
Postmaster General
Postmaster General
Avatar

Joined: 24 Apr 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 1269
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Oct 2011 at 08:19
Originally posted by Kumomoto Kumomoto wrote:

Oh, c'mon. Who the hell is defending a guy who is only going to lose a single city? Really?
 
My tolerance for war damage whinging on the Valar side is precisely now zero point zero. And the next whiny mofo deserves another city sieged. Most weddings do more damage to banquet halls than we did to Valar in this war... If there is another single whine from a Valar player then I'll be pissed!

What about the question of continuing bad blood and revenge Kumo? 

I am not sure if all valar player knows what is happening now with moreblue or even that he joined and left their alliance. In the last week I haven't seen a single post from any valar player other than ChristinaZah. 

If you keep on holding that your side is right because you had reason to hurt them more, there is little point arguing with it. Once your revenge is consummated, you will feel inferior to your enemy. Why not let it go once for the sake of goodwill? 





Back to Top
Mr Damage View Drop Down
Postmaster
Postmaster
Avatar

Joined: 01 Jan 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 598
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Oct 2011 at 07:30
Originally posted by Kumomoto Kumomoto wrote:

Oh, c'mon. Who the hell is defending a guy who is only going to lose a single city? Really?
 
My tolerance for war damage whinging on the Valar side is precisely now zero point zero. And the next whiny mofo deserves another city sieged. Most weddings do more damage to banquet halls than we did to Valar in this war... If there is another single whine from a Valar player then I'll be pissed!


Kumo could you please stop bringing me into this.Lol, sorry couldn't help it.
Back to Top
ugofirst View Drop Down
New Poster
New Poster


Joined: 20 Jun 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 11
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Oct 2011 at 07:09
my motives are as follows starry

i would like an end to this 'war'

i would like to see fair play,

 i like the 'eye for an eye' justice system and do not agree with persecution for the sake of it
Back to Top
Rill View Drop Down
Postmaster General
Postmaster General
Avatar
Player Council - Geographer

Joined: 17 Jun 2011
Location: California
Status: Offline
Points: 6903
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Oct 2011 at 06:49
Originally posted by Sgt..Shanks Sgt..Shanks wrote:

Originally posted by Rill Rill wrote:

StJude, I believe people are attacking Blue because he joined an alliance for a war, attacked siege camps, then sought to avoid consequences for his actions by leaving that alliance.  You may not agree with it as a reason, but it is a reason.



 Why do you all call DEFENSE, attacking?
Breaking a siege IS NOT an ATTACK!



I was trying to use relatively neutral language ... to say that he "defended" a siege camp would seem to be confusing and imply that he had reinforced the siege camp, which would be the opposite of what actually occurred.

Whether losing a city is an appropriate consequence for an action taken in aid of a then-alliance mate is for wiser heads than mine to decide.

I do see H? and other coalition members as having shown restraint in the prosecution of the war.  I don't imagine it's possible for everyone to agree on "when" or "how much damage" is appropriate in these situations.  What to one side may appear to be mercy may to another side seem to be harsh punishment.  

I do think it's amazing that we're able to have these discussions with relatively little resort to ad hominem arguments and name calling.  I continue to be impressed by the Illy community of all opinions.

Edited to add:  Valar members ALSO demonstrated restraint, and to my knowledge did not target smaller members of coalition alliances, in spite of the temptation of being on a side that was losing badly.  They deserve a great deal of credit for this.  (There may be exceptions of which I am unaware, but I believe my general characterization is accurate.)


Edited by Rill - 08 Oct 2011 at 19:13
Back to Top
Kilotov of DokGthung View Drop Down
Postmaster
Postmaster


Joined: 07 Jun 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 723
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Oct 2011 at 06:48
Originally posted by Kumomoto Kumomoto wrote:

Oh, c'mon. Who the hell is defending a guy who is only going to lose a single city? Really?
 
My tolerance for war damage whinging on the Valar side is precisely now zero point zero. And the next whiny mofo deserves another city sieged. Most weddings do more damage to banquet halls than we did to Valar in this war... If there is another single whine from a Valar player then I'll be pissed!


+1
Back to Top
Kumomoto View Drop Down
Postmaster General
Postmaster General


Joined: 19 Oct 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 2224
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Oct 2011 at 06:42
Oh, c'mon. Who the hell is defending a guy who is only going to lose a single city? Really?
 
My tolerance for war damage whinging on the Valar side is precisely now zero point zero. And the next whiny mofo deserves another city sieged. Most weddings do more damage to banquet halls than we did to Valar in this war... If there is another single whine from a Valar player then I'll be pissed!


Edited by Kumomoto - 08 Oct 2011 at 06:43
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345 10>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.03
Copyright ©2001-2019 Web Wiz Ltd.