Sister Nikki Posted: Today at 15:39:
“I do not sell or try to gain profit from the conflict but who can resist on the profit”
What evidence is there that CE were attempting to profit from the war? To prove that, you would have to have evidence of gold passing from Consone to us. And the only way to do that would be to fabricate it, because it didn’t. This is also a little rich in context as we are talking about an alliance that is offering us the choice between total destruction or a payment of 250 million gold. Hang on... that sounds a little like... profiting from the war!
Drejan Posted: Today at 16:48:
“Hora do you really think H? care of 250M?
250M is not much for an alliance but might help remember not to do it again.”
KillerPoodle Posted: Today at 17:10:
“but it might help jog their memories next time they think about it”
Both of these statements are disingenuous, the fact is, as evidenced by the chat snippet you graciously provided, our leadership were not aware that trading with our sister alliance was verboten until the 7th. The city in question was destroyed by yourselves on the 8th. The mail you sent to us clearly shows that the van was in transit for 1 day and 6 hours. So it could not have left after the point our leadership received word from EE that trading with them might be frowned upon. The upshot of this, is that CE has been fully compliant since the point we became aware of the directive.
You have created a sanction which incriminates us retroactively by 15 days. Where is it written that trading with our sister alliance is grounds for annihilation? If you want to dictate the behavior of peripheral alliances in this contest, then the onus is on you to make clear the terms of engagement, we received no communication from yourselves that we were to modify our typical behavior in any way.
It’s just too convenient to declare a Casus Belli after the fact, without warning and without proper investigation.
“Then there was the lie from Spotem about it being "some new folks we took in from FF"”
The van that was intercepted was indeed from a former FF member who arrived in our alliance on the 22 of October; check your outbox. Our member was speaking of this van you referenced in your mail, there were no untruths in what he said.
Your assertion that our leadership was supplying EE is based on a chat snippet which you have chosen to interpret in a way which incriminates us. But all that exists in that snippet is a warning from an EE member to a CE member that “those vans might get caught”. The EE member could have been referring to vans containing some herbs or books, ordered by a fledgling eagle on the open market. It does not follow that the statement equals an industrial effort to turn the course of the war. And as we have mentioned, since we were made aware, all trade with our sister alliance has ceased.
“and it might have an impact on everyone else thinking about sneaking some help in”
A double standard? Unsurprising. It’s hard to see how an alliance which has publicly outed itself as retaining moles in other alliance (as evidenced by the obtaining of a chat snippet from EE ac) can accuse others of sneaking with a straight face .
In summary, the justifications you have attempted to make regarding “teaching us a lesson” and “making us think twice” are based on assumptions you have made about evidence that is gathering dust as we speak and furthermore are a nonsense because since the events under discussion, CE has already made itself compliant, fully 15 days in advance of your cumbersome threats. Attacking us now would be flogging a dead horse.
As for a counter offer, Chosen recognizes that our player who sent the van referred to in KillerPoodle’s mail acted outside the intentions of our leadership, albeit before CE were made aware of any possibility of recrimination. As such, to placate the beast, we are willing to offer 10 million gold pieces to make clear that despite the fact that the sending of that van was not known to us, and furthermore, happened before CE leaders put policy in place to prevent it being sent; it has never been our intention to be involved in the war, and certainly not to enrage great powers.
As an addendum to our counter-offer, we would ask that H? make it’s policy on the behavior of peripheral alliances clear and public before acting on them, rather than inventing them as they go along in the manner that most benefits their prerogative at the time. What of the alliances that just want to be left in peace, and are willing to comply with goliaths to that end?
In closing, some players have mentioned that our first post might have broken forum rules by directly quoting an in-game mail. We’d like to apologize to the Devs and community for this oversight, as we struggled to get the post together in good time. Sorry!
Tweet
H? Threaten War On CE, Attempt To Extort 250mil
Topic Options
Silverlake wrote:
