The Spin

Elmindra wrote: One last time, a quick look of H? towns show at least 10 towns lost within the last few weeks, a quick look of NC towns show at least 5 towns lost within the last few weeks.  Quite a bit of population loss on a lot of towns which may or may not be exodus.

Oh, another "client" with the population loss ... so, Elmindra, now you are telling us the population counts are a good way to count someone's battle capabilities .?. One must wonder why you people argued so much against that standard in the case of NC being stacked upon by a much larger conglomeration of opponents in population.

Double standards are always amusing, but do try to keep a relative time distance before applying them in similar situations because the whole matter becomes ludicrous.

This thread reminds me of a similar discussion in the Consone war where they were trying to convince us that we were not doing any damage because in the weekly counts Consone as a group was in fact GROWING (back then they were counting city numbers iirc), ergo it must have been doing something right and we were barely scratching them.

I might find that post tomorrow, if this thread keeps in the current direction.


Edited by Deranzin - 17 Nov 2013 at 21:59

Oh and it appears that H? just lost 2 more towns since this thread started, better add them as well.

Epidemic wrote: I'll be more than happy to keep track of all razed/exodus cities, if you send me the info. I also will add  categories for inactive/permasat accounts taken out of the game i.e.(Beecks) and a list of players who abandon the game because of this war.

Epidemic the problem is not who will compile the information, but what IS the information and whether people consider the sources of said information accurate and/or trustworthy. In that regard I do not think that anyone needs an outside accountant/auditor/scorekeeper and that the common practice of each side keeping its own score till the bitter end will continue to flourish in this case, as well.

The Duke wrote: Deranzin wrote: The Duke wrote: and Derazin, Show me where I mentioned anything about pop and NC, generalizing "you guys" isnt fair to either side imo unless talking about an issue the entire side is involved in.    Well, excuse me, but if we are to believe what we have been hearing here all these months NC are an issue with which your "entire side is involved in" or so they claimed. I have no knowledge and I have seen no announcement on why your alliance particularly is in this war, but since those things are absent from any public knowledge one can only assume that you agree with the agenda, the reasons and the cause of your allies (else you wouldn't have been fighting alongside them, reason says). Now considering that the side you are fighting for was totally busting this place with this argument, well, sorry, but since you jumped in on that side it can be safely assumed that you at least agreed with their main argument for this war. Right .?. If I am wrong/mistaken and you never agreed on that "population does not equate battleworthy-ness" argument then I will gladly edit/reform my post, but it would automatically mean that all this time you believed that the fight against NC was lopsided and effectively a bullying tactic and that you endorsed it despite that. Your choice. Edit : minor corrections. Too many assumptions in one post , you know that old saying right.

And there are not many assumptions, just a long explanations of ONE FACT (the fact that since you are on THAT side, then you share their agenda and ideas, else you wouldn't be there in the first place) in case someone "misquotes" or "misunderstands" me ... ;)

But putting that aside you didn't inform me of your choice ... do you stand by your previous quote about population and have an opposite opinion on this matter than your allies or not .?.

If not, I trust that you will at least refrain from using that argument again and have some consistency in your side's arguments ... 

Deranzin wrote: The Duke wrote: and Derazin, Show me where I mentioned anything about pop and NC, generalizing "you guys" isnt fair to either side imo unless talking about an issue the entire side is involved in.    Well, excuse me, but if we are to believe what we have been hearing here all these months NC are an issue with which your "entire side is involved in" or so they claimed. I have no knowledge and I have seen no announcement on why your alliance particularly is in this war, but since those things are absent from any public knowledge one can only assume that you agree with the agenda, the reasons and the cause of your allies (else you wouldn't have been fighting alongside them, reason says). Now considering that the side you are fighting for was totally busting this place with this argument, well, sorry, but since you jumped in on that side it can be safely assumed that you at least agreed with their main argument for this war. Right .?. If I am wrong/mistaken and you never agreed on that "population does not equate battleworthy-ness" argument then I will gladly edit/reform my post, but it would automatically mean that all this time you believed that the fight against NC was lopsided and effectively a bullying tactic and that you endorsed it despite that. Your choice. Edit : minor corrections.

Too many assumptions in one post , you know that old saying right.