Regarding the upcoming changes to neutrality

 

right, cause that 6508 additional population which reflects resource/arms production better than number of members really puts us over the top...Oh wait it still doesn't.

Diablito wrote: Perhaps those six members, those six top ten members who constantly leech resources from the alliance to power their cities while their members burn, should try focusing on their alliance rather than themselves for a second.

Our members have eagerly volunteered their resources because they want them used to put you out of our misery, not pillaged from their defenseless or unmanned accounts by the very aggressors attacking them.  We weren't even being supplied until you started attacking our non-combatants, most of whom are too small to even have troops in quantity or quality worth mention, and most of whom were conveniently away when you struck.  Our most ardent suppliers are the ones you constantly attack.  Heck, I should thank you for bolstering the camaraderie and loyalty of our members.  They make me proud.  And they know whom to blame for their misery.  You have left them no other productive avenue for participation in the game.  They can't grow under the constant waves of saboteurs, rebuild their military strength under the constant military attacks.

For weeks I watched half of your alliance send constant reinforcements to your personal capital.  No doubt this was purely "for the good of the alliance."  We have the names and activity logs of every member who has aided both the war and your defense personally (and it's quite a list...far longer than the list of our own suppliers).  We knew which members were rendering themselves helpless for your cause.

We chose to directly confront you and that power defense you erected most clearly just for your own good, instead of attacking those players who rendered themselves defenseless on your behalf.  Attacking them would have been good strategy.  But we don't need to lower ourselves to your standards.  We've seen your type too.  Alliances like White always crumble when faced with fair opposition, because the members get to see who really expects members to sacrifice themselves for the good of their leaders.

Furthermore, we don't consider the mere wearing of an alliance tag as presumption of guilt.  Not everyone in your alliance contributes to the war effort, and we would offer clemency to those who continue their non-involvement.  To those who have contributed, and seen what White/Black costs them (surely you didn't think we missed Black's involvement either), we offer time to consider their actions.  We're not going to relentlessly gank smaller players for making bad decisions one time, now or later.  We know who is responsible for the choices of White as an alliance, and it is they whom we hold accountable.

Diablito wrote: Long, aimless rant with no substance or logic.

I normally make far more detailed point-by-point rebuttal, but this hardly seems worth the effort.  I'm a busy man these days.  As for your ludicrous claims of stagnancy...I shouldn't even bother dignifying that with a response either, but here goes:

I've seen your "chaos."  It does mean more war--constant, unrelenting war against smaller players while the bigger get constantly bigger.  It means an experience of pure frustration for new players trying to participate possibly for the first time while a few experienced bands rape and pillage all for their accelerated growth.  It means people quitting the game on a higher order of magnitude while the most talented rule the ruin-littered roost.  Only the most committed (as in round-the-clock vigilance) are allowed to survive.  Thoughts of real-life or friendly dispute have no place in White's world.

And as for us and our stagnating ways?  For someone who prides himself in his spies and subterfuge, you should know what P.E.A.C.E. means by now.