H? and VALAR: who is mightier and who is right?

"The community (not 'might makes right') must decide who has the rights over an inactive" 

I like Rill. U do good.

they know, and they did this whole thing on purpose, they are too big to care. Rill paid them tons of money because they defended themselves, i mean H? dont care they are having fun laughing

Chuck Norris is mightier than both Valar and H?

I have waded through most of the guff here and have my own opinions.
While it is honorable to notify an alliance of whom you wish to remove or capture a on of their  'suspended players' city (and our alliance does this) it is not something is necessarily necessary (forgive the redundancy) - But why do this?

There is 'no' established or basic code of conduct for this type of thing as yet. In fact, it has typically been a rule of thumb regarding suspended players cities - whoever is there first gets the claim. The person is suspended - if the alliance they are held to desires said property, they need to move on it in a reasonable amount of time. While it is potentially 'polite' to ask if you can have a players city or cities that no longer is playing anymore from an alliance they are labeled as a part of, it is not necessary because of the old rule - get there first.

Again, this is PROCESS that needs to be fleshed out. Most of the player led rules are unwritten and some of those need to be revised due to new aspects within the game. I also agree that both sides made some mistakes, but again - This is a SUSPENDED player.. thus whatever happens here needs to done carefully because there are no actual written nor unwritten/established diplomatic ways proceed which are viable at present. Thus it must be hammered out as you go along. This (in the open forum) helps others see how to better go about it.

As for me, I stand behind the H? player's right to allow the city to be moved or remove by his own hand, the suspended players city irregardless of if he had previous issues with the Valar player or not. Due closeness of the city and the fact the player is 'suspended'.

Now, on behalf of the alliance - Dwarven Lords:

As for any attacks on T?... well, just note the Dwarven Lords will not just watch it happen but will be VERY active in removing any player(s) or cities that wish to test this action. There will be no recompense, only Dwarven retribution. Leave the training alliances alone!
This is not a threat but some positive advise. This is not to derail the thread, as any response to this section will not be responded to.

Thank you


Edited by belargyle - 10 May 2012 at 17:22