| Author |
|
Halcyon 
Forum Warrior
Joined: 17 Aug 2012
Location: Israel
Status: Offline
Points: 360
|
 Posted: 29 Dec 2012 at 11:09 |
 Ander wrote:
Coming to your side, if you are talking about Rhea/Yahweh/Denver, Denver was a spy in invictus, sat by H member Yahweh (who signed an IGM with the wrong name at the wrong time). Denver has tiny settlements scattered around Rhea/Yahweh cities to prevent others from settling nearby. (As Sloter said, mom's, cousin's, uncle's, dog's accounts)
Ahaliel lost several of his cities to H/Dark sieges in the west (three until November, i stopped counting after that). Now when one of Rhea's city was captured by Ahaliel, I find it hard to sympathize with Rhea. Rhea has only one city in Larn, she can exodus that to Tallimar if she wants to.
|
Denver was in Dark when the war began. He was inactive. ahaliel was active and in the middle of Dark's stronghold in The Western Realms. Dark made a deal with Vicx leadership according to which both players will leave their alliances and remain neutral and unharmed. Denver was kicked out of Dark. Then, while Dark was fighting Vic in The Western Realms, ahaliel went against the agreement and without any warning attacked our siege camp in strength. Dark then chased him out of our territory. 2 of his cities were razed and he exodused the 3rd. In my view his actions were dishonourable and he paid for that.
|
 |
Ander
Postmaster General
Joined: 24 Apr 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 1269
|
Posted: 29 Dec 2012 at 06:43 |
Meagh wrote:
If the aggression toward the player is really about the player multi-accounting and being a spy, then imho the aggression is justified. I loathe any player who multi-accounts in order to spy on another group as I loathe any group that condones that kind of thing. However if that is the reason the attacker is justifying the attacks then he should say so and not try to justify it by accrediting to a war the person is no longer involved in.
|
I was responding to Silverlake, not to Rhea/Yahweh or to the question when a player should or should not be attacked. I mentioned the previous incidents because Silverlake seems confused, as to what has been happening in the war so far.
Fighting H/DLord/Dark/BSH/TCol/CoK/~N~/NC/NA/RES/Curse is busy. Once the war is over and we survive, I will be happy to answer any questions to folks for record keeping (or for their curiosity) 
And thanks EvilKatia, for clarifying things for the sake of everyone
Edited by Ander - 29 Dec 2012 at 06:45
|
|
EvilKatia
Forum Warrior
Joined: 30 Jun 2012
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 210
|
Posted: 29 Dec 2012 at 06:19 |
thank you Meagh, I beleive silver was refering to rhea (I could be wrong however I am making assumptions here) who jsut came back. as she has announced publicly on gc (was I the only one to see that or what ?) that her mother died and she WOULDNT be around....
It was hard I think for personnal friends( Silver ?) of her to see her sieged when they knew she wasnt even around just sayin'.....
Wich is why H? drop her in the hope she would stop being a target....and then well....she lost another city today even in a neutral alliance.... Hopefully that is DONE with. Rhea is now in T-O and we FULLY intend to be neutral. The attack on her from several alliances will be recalled or so we have been told. Iif thsi is not the case well will take the appropriate step so she can finish her mourning and come back to the game as she can. To any other party interested yes she is back in the game her, not a sitter, and to all her friends accept our thanks from T-O for your unconditionnal support for such a fine person that Rhea is :)
P.S. Rhea said she put the siege behidn her but she is human to all her friends why dont u igm her :) she will enjoy that :).
Edited to try to have control over the typos (yeah I Know I'm hopeless over that :( )
Edited by EvilKatia - 29 Dec 2012 at 06:20
|
|
Kat
'They have to always turn a forum post into a badly written book that gives a headache and takes your iq points' - AO
|
|
Meagh
Forum Warrior
Joined: 16 Jul 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 224
|
Posted: 29 Dec 2012 at 06:01 |
i agree with the above posters on point 1. If they are in an alliance that you are at war with then it is honorable and right to battle them. onto point 2... > 2. They left the warring alliance without taking any action against another alliance. This is exactly how they should have left imho. They didn't want to be part of the war and left without initiating any act of aggression. I think if there is any offense in this action the players old alliancemates who he abandoned in time of need should be offended, not the ones he is at war with. Either way though, he defected from his group and is no longer in the war. this of course leads to the response in point >1. I can't verify that you are not a sitter.
That simply does not matter or justify continuing an attack imho. You cannot prove that they are a sitter either. In reality you are attacking a player who left the war. Whatever justification you make, the burden of proof to show that they are still participating in the war is on you. If the are providing substantial aid to the group you are at war with then yeah, it is imho right to continue the war on them. Otherwise the attack isn't a war effort - it's an unjustified attack on that player.
All of that said, I do not know any specifics regarding Rhea/Yahweh/Denve or what situation this may pertain to specifically. If the aggression toward the player is really about the player multi-accounting and being a spy, then imho the aggression is justified. I loathe any player who multi-accounts in order to spy on another group as I loathe any group that condones that kind of thing. However if that is the reason the attacker is justifying the attacks then he should say so and not try to justify it by accrediting to a war the person is no longer involved in.
that's my nickels worth. - M.
Edited by Meagh - 29 Dec 2012 at 06:07
|
|
|
|
Ander
Postmaster General
Joined: 24 Apr 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 1269
|
Posted: 29 Dec 2012 at 05:48 |
Rorgash wrote:
fine by me, i feel more for H? having to deal with this from one of their members..
Do your duty and be a good distraction so that your alliance can kill more! Waaargh! |
Didn't you hear Kilotov, Rorgash? "H are the masters of Illy". When masters speak, kobolds stay silent. 
Do your duty and go and wash the car. (just kidding!)
|
|
Ander
Postmaster General
Joined: 24 Apr 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 1269
|
Posted: 29 Dec 2012 at 05:38 |
Silverlake wrote:
... is it honorable, to:
1. Siege a member of the alliance you are at war with, even though they have not attacked, nor have they sent diplomats against your alliance? They have not participated at all. |
The first city we lost was vty's Nova to Anjire's siege. vty did not attack or send diplomats against H before the siege. She was not part of the leadership either.
Thes Hunter did not attack or diplo anyone. She inquired about the H policy on such matters when she was sieged. How many cities did she lose?
Soup alliances never had any issues or even communication with BSH/TCol/CoK, not to mention military or diplo attacks. Why are they sieging us? I remember Nokigon(CoK) giving a certificate to TCol, that TCol are not wannabe war gamers who wanted to join the stronger side to kick someone. I expect Kale weathers(TCol) to come out one of these days and give the same certificate to Nokigon. Sad, I thought much better than this of Nokigon.
Coming to your side, if you are talking about Rhea/Yahweh/Denver, Denver was a spy in invictus, sat by H member Yahweh (who signed an IGM with the wrong name at the wrong time). Denver has tiny settlements scattered around Rhea/Yahweh cities to prevent others from settling nearby. (As Sloter said, mom's, cousin's, uncle's, dog's accounts)
Ahaliel lost several of his cities to H/Dark sieges in the west (three until November, i stopped counting after that). Now when one of Rhea's city was captured by Ahaliel, I find it hard to sympathize with Rhea. Rhea has only one city in Larn, she can exodus that to Tallimar if she wants to.
Edited by Ander - 29 Dec 2012 at 06:08
|
|
Aurordan
Postmaster
Player Council - Ambassador
Joined: 21 Sep 2011
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 982
|
Posted: 29 Dec 2012 at 05:28 |
|
Well, the answer to number one is yes. Members of belligerent alliances are pretty much fair game, you don't have to wait until they attack you. That would be kind of stupid actually. The other one's didn't seem to really be questions, but in general being suspicious isn't terribly dishonorable, especially considering they're suspicions seem justified. If they have indeed left H?, why is a high government member of that alliance pleading their case here? I mean, clearly you got that mail from somewhere. It doesn't sound like this guy has exactly cut ties.
|
|
Rorgash
Postmaster
Joined: 23 Aug 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 894
|
Posted: 29 Dec 2012 at 01:28 |
fine by me, i feel more for H? having to deal with this from one of their members..
Do your duty and be a good distraction so that your alliance can kill more! Waaargh!
|
|
Silverlake
Forum Warrior
Joined: 15 Oct 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 417
|
Posted: 29 Dec 2012 at 01:11 |
... is it honorable, to:
1. Siege a member of the alliance you are at war with, even though they have not attacked, nor have they sent diplomats against your alliance? They have not participated at all.
2. They left the warring alliance without taking any action against another alliance.
3. They wrote you after you stated a siege against them, and they told you "Hey, I had a death in the family, I have been inactive for months, and I did not participate in the war. I only want to continue playing the game, please stop the siege against me."
4. You write back:
1. I can't verify that you are not a sitter. 2. You should have left H? when the war started, because your cities are very deep in enemy territory. Staying in H? was a provocation. Does this sound honorable to anyone?
|
|
Tweet
So we are at war, is it honorable....
Topic Options