| Author |
|
scaramouche
Forum Warrior
Joined: 25 Apr 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 432
|
Posted: 07 Dec 2012 at 07:57 |
The_Dude wrote:
scaramouche wrote:
****
the only attempted siege i can recall was by a certain player called skorn who joined us recently before the said "siege".
the only notice any of our alliance got of this was himself saying in AC that a RES player had settled/exodused too close to him and he wasnt happy, but by then he had already sent the siege to which shortly after RES destroyed it.
very shortly after this he himself was discharged from our alliance for his actions.
no matter what way you try to spin it..he was dealt with in the only appropriate way that we could of done so.
*** | On October 15, 2012, WE member Skorn sieged RES member Harry Gihan's city Harrys Eei on the pretense that it was within 5 sqs of a WE city. In fact, it was over 8 sqs from the nearest WE city at that time.
Note re: Skorn: Skorn is an account that Jezma inherited from the original account holder in June 2010. I late summer 2012, Jezma passed Skorn to a newbie Mufridaz. On October 15, 2012 Murfridaz was WET not WE.
WE did not kick Skorn until October 20, 2012 - 5 days after the siege and 4 days AFTER RES had withdrawn from peace discussions and war was imminent. The only reason WE kicked Skorn at this late date was in a failed attempt to avert war. WET retained Mufridaz as a member until October 24, 2012 - kicking him 4 hours AFTER RES declared war on WE.
Additionally, WE attempted to pass the lie that Skorn recalled the siege voluntarily.
On November 1, 2012 VALAR invited Skorn to join them. On November 3, 2012 VALAR and WE Confed. On November 5, 2012 VALAR entered the war.
Skorn remains a member of Consone and is under Consone's protection. Arguing that the "kick" was appropriate and sufficient satisfaction to RES is absurd. |
I can tell you exactly what happend that day skorn tried to siege a member and will admit he didnt try to recall the siege voluntarily," I " told him to recall it the moment he said he sent a siege, being as your player settled 8 squares from him (which while he was ranting about him being too close, even I told him 8 squares was liveable and told him I myself had neighbours that close but it didnt affect or bother me)
but like i said earlier, he told me it was to late to recall, and please dont be so naive TD, ofc we wanted to avoid any conflict, why would we want to antagonise anyone else after so shortly after becoming involved in the bigger war?
As for him still being in consone has nothing to do with us, no matter how many times we have said that you still keep bringing that up.
we kicked skorn..nuff said on the matter
the ratboy sov issue, as far as im aware when he took those points you was mailed about it and the response i heard we got was a negative and aloof reply.therefore forcing our hand.
you maybe right with the dates of settling but they settled 8 squares from RB which even by your standards is a fair distance considering some of your players have done likewise, but taking the dolmens was a little too far...
And if your also saying cos RB was in south tor before ray and grunt so therefore you have all rights to that area, can i remind you I was there along time before him.
|
|
NO..I dont do the Fandango!
|
 |
Jasche
Wordsmith
Joined: 06 Jan 2011
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Points: 175
|
Posted: 07 Dec 2012 at 07:47 |
Brids17, I wasn't going to comment but as Afa made a statement and you have made a response I feel duty bound to respond.
I have been less than impressed with some of the behaviour/rhetoric on these forums and in game during the war and specifically to this point - I do not take kindly to being compared to Ribbentrop in whatever analogy you wish to use.
It is not acceptable, nor pleasant for the receiver, to have an analogy used which compares them to a war criminal who was hanged for crimes which involved the extermination of Jews and prisoners of war.
In short, if you are looking for real life comparators - find a better analogy!
|
'The Welfare of the People is the Highest Law'
|
 |
Brids17
Postmaster General
Joined: 30 Jul 2010
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 1483
|
Posted: 07 Dec 2012 at 07:35 |
Southern Dwarf wrote:
Quote for report. Since I am German I am very concerned about to be called anything near a Nazi because of my natural sensibility for history. I just hope the devs will not tolerate any comment which seems to marginalize the crimes of the Nationalsocialists. |
He didn't say anything about the nazi's, you did.
|
|
|
 |
Southern Dwarf
Forum Warrior
Joined: 28 Sep 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 281
|
Posted: 07 Dec 2012 at 06:35 |
|
|
|
Also known as Afaslizo ingame.
|
 |
The_Dude
Postmaster General
Joined: 06 Apr 2010
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 2396
|
Posted: 07 Dec 2012 at 05:50 |
Mr Damage wrote:
Thanks TD, appreciate the acknowledgement, do you think this impacts on the Coal/Soup war in any way? |
I have no idea. It does affect RES relations with those alliances greatly.
|
 |
Mr Damage
Postmaster
Joined: 01 Jan 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 598
|
Posted: 07 Dec 2012 at 05:42 |
|
Thanks TD, appreciate the acknowledgement, do you think this impacts on the Coal/Soup war in any way?
|
 |
The_Dude
Postmaster General
Joined: 06 Apr 2010
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 2396
|
Posted: 07 Dec 2012 at 04:58 |
I have no knowledge of others and can not speak for them.
RES was fighting exclusively WE until various WE Confeds (VIC, Absa, VALAR) /NAPs (VICX) attacked RES sieges and blockades on WE as well as reinforced WE cities against RES attacks.
RES is retaliating in-kind.
Edited by The_Dude - 07 Dec 2012 at 04:59
|
 |
Mr Damage
Postmaster
Joined: 01 Jan 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 598
|
Posted: 07 Dec 2012 at 04:20 |
So Coal posters, the 9 or so alliances that have declared war on WE are not part of Coal? They are fighting WE only (WE is part of soup)? These supposed non Coal alliances are not sending troops/diplos to any other Soup towns, sieges on Coal cities or blockades? They are not sending support troops/diplos to Coal sieges/blockades on Soup cities? These alliances that have declared war on WE and are actively attacking them and Soup alliances are actively defending them, has no impact on the war against Soup, for either side?
If you can honestly say this is all correct then yeah LOJ's statement is correct, surprisingly I dont think you can honestly say that. WE's diplomacy page says it all, there is more than 4 alliances fighting Soup alliances, there is part of your desired proof, but first let us see you answer the above honestly.
I have no gripe with your methods Coal, and you are doing the better job, all credit to you but at least concede the fact that it is the work of more than 4 alliances that is helping you achieve what you have. I'll now go and check the diplo stats for 2 more declarations.
|
 |
The_Dude
Postmaster General
Joined: 06 Apr 2010
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 2396
|
Posted: 07 Dec 2012 at 02:05 |
KillerPoodle wrote:
scaramouche wrote:
A whole bunch of stuff random stuff about TD
|
****
|
|
 |
KillerPoodle
Postmaster General
Joined: 23 Feb 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 1853
|
Posted: 07 Dec 2012 at 01:33 |
scaramouche wrote:
A whole bunch of stuff random stuff about TD
|
My statement had nothing to do with TD or RES whatsoever. The only people who are at war with WE about issue with RES are RES themselves. Every other alliance at war with WE has their own specific issues with WE members and WE leadership. The fact that you think it's all about RES is yet another of the lies RMY has told you that you have swallowed hook line and sinker.
|
|
"This is a bad idea and we shouldn't do it." - endorsement by HM
"a little name-calling is a positive thing." - Rill
|
 |