Siege Breaking Defence or Offence?

Shadar Logoth wrote: Ok, lets break the dude's file open...

it seemed inevitable that when a long standing player like Shads starts pointing out the contradictions and changes in H? policy concerning breaking of sieges that The_Dude from RES would chime in, not with a reasoned argument, but with a "snide comment"  designed to provoke and offend.

Edited by Ossian - 21 Apr 2013 at 13:23

KP, yes you're partly right. 

Shad-- Your implied threat that anyone who argues with you will suffer from your J. Edgar Hoover style records of past behavior is rubbish. Nobody has better records in this game than H?.

And I love the recent presumption upon many fronts that Consone was some sort of innocent group of friends that would never have gotten into war if it weren't for the mechanics of the instigation of this war. First of all, if you go back in time, it was Consone, not H?, who was the big swinging, d*%k in Illy before this. Consone had roughly 2 times H? + DLord's pop (our only public confed), was unstoppable, and any issues with Consone were most commonly were brushed aside. The fact that they were naive enough to think that we had no other friends who were willing to jump in with us is not our problem and not at all indicative of the conflict. The folks opposing Consone at the end of the war were NOT the same numbers as the ones that Consone thought were going to oppose them at the beginning. Never forget that. I do not doubt for a second that if Consone knew who was going to ultimately oppose them, they would never have acted the way they did. Bullies never like equal odds.



Edited by Kumomoto - 21 Apr 2013 at 08:33

Hora, I see no black/white juxtaposition. Shad set out to make me look silly. That lies in the eye of the beholder. My history is my history. I doubt anyone has a " richer" history.

Shadar Logoth wrote: Ok, lets break the dude's file open. You certainly never learned anything from it. So we might as well, right? It's a long story. So i will try keep it short.  Did he and I have a past at that time, we sure did? And we were both struggling with it. (My alt was in his alliance).  The_Dude never mentioned anyone about the fact that Warrior Bunny (Invictus) came to his aid when he was in trouble.  The_Dude joined other alliances, fine, good on him. That alliance chose to war on H?  Fine, no problem with me either.  That war was cause of it's leader who lied to his people. Shoot! Most of the community felt bad for him.  His bad ex-leader decided to wage a war on The_Dude, but first went for an invictus member as this person had agrood him enough, called Kaboom. The community came together, and yes, The knights who  say Ni, got repelled.  What truelly was a terrible thing to happen, was that he then decided to go after T_D again. (oh there go the sad feelings for t_d up a notch) T_D was even right that the members in the new to be formed TMM (which i jokingly called, the marshmallow man) were in fact just the one old remaining member of the Knights who say Ni, going after him with a vengeance. And he did.  TMM in the meantime also insisted on all malmothians to join them, or get killed.  H? had members who were befriend, or claimed to be so, with other players that were hunted by TMM. In forum posts they will explain that H? members have a large autonomy with regards to which wars they do, and do not involve themselves in. (A lot more alliances joined in, and history does not tell u that Invictus, with me as its leader, had offered T_D to take him on in our alliance and thus shelter him. Sure, it would take some work, but the offer was there). Eventually a lot of alliances helped bring TMM down, T_D and me cleaned up the rest. And in this case, T_D and I can still agree, it was necessary.  Now.... going back to the question of this forum post.  When is breaking a siege an aggressive action or not, to suddenly make it more sense?  I know no one will like me for asking this question, just like Hath MUST HAVE BEEN wrong to dare ask it... but next time i go to war. I would like it to be it for a valid reason. Not just some lie.  And if go to war alongside someone next time... then i also would like to be certain that their reasons are truethfull.  People might have a lot of thoughts about these hundreds of people that were part of Consone, but no one really ever wondered why not even ONE of these members EVER spoke up against the so-called aggressiveness of their leaders, unlike the fact that their were h?/coalition members, who at the very least, doubted the reasons for this war. Again, this post isn't about the last war. But I, and a lot of other people, would surely like to know when, and when not, they are expected to be causing grieve to some other alliance if they are ever to undertake such an action again in the future.

WOW!