Originally Posted by Crunch
Pretty sure bombdigie didn't post fake accusations in here. This time it was crunch and 2utopian.
Last edited by Leshrak; 11-07-2015 at 10:58.
Do do....this made me "laugh out loud" and not just type lol
Well, we established there was at least one thing that they actually did do although I'm not sure one thing counts as plentiful. They advised the #1 province to get a cf with BB including threatening to raze if BB refused. They then apologized for suggesting this and offered BB their own land and whatever cf terms BB felt appropriate to try and fix things. At least they didn't do anything really bad like deal breaking and waving into active war.
Who are these ghettos?
#EmeritiGhetto
One of those ghettos is the kingdom that got a 200% nw autowin off you despite you having your allies BB wave them into your war and you both starting the conflict #1 and #2 nw.
You are so full of ****, it was "You should raze not "You should threaten to raze" and lets not forget the long smear campaign you did where you claimed amongst others that BB "Ignored" without any actual proof on that than your own definition. But I guess its okey to lie as long as you're the one doing it. :)
From flogger's post, the last thing any leader in Emeriti said on the topic was:
jdorje 6:19 PM
"if we cf them, bour is dead and that is bad for us so if i were bour i'd go get the cf now with threats of postwar hitting if they refuse"
Who is full of ****? As for ignored, you didn't like that word and that's fine, but it was shown and proved that bour did message 5 players in BB prior to razing. The BB steward read the message and did not respond. This is fully established. The other 3 online kingdom mates he messaged also read his message and didn't respond according to bour (hard to prove this after the fact but the screen shots of the messages were posted.) I called that ignored. You think that reading a message requesting a response and not responding is not ignoring it. That's fine, I am not going to debate linguistics with you.
Last edited by AquaSeaFoam; 11-07-2015 at 16:38.
Oh so you mean thats the only thing said about the issue, nothing else was said? Werent you the one that *****ed flogger posted just one part of a conversation? Now you are doing the exact same thing, picking out what suits you the best.
Ofc you are not inclined to discuss linguistic with me cause you as well as I know there is no such definition of "Ignore" anywhere.A request is a request there is no formal demand that you shall respond to a messages and its not considered ignoring cause you dont respond. If you know the person read it, then you know the messages came through and the reasonable thing is to wait for a response. Not twiddle your thumbs for 4 hours pretend the ignored you and then raze.
I specifically characterized the quote I pulled as being from floggers post (which is still available for all) and also as being the last thing an emeriti leader said on the subject. Generally, when an issue is discussed, the statements at the end are the conclusion and the advise given after the discussion. You're just mad that you were shown to be dead *wrong* and the leader advice was indeed to threaten to raze. A non-leader did later suggest that Bour only wait 3 hours to raze if they don't answer or try to delay. It should be noted that there were 14 people in that channel at the time. When BB's council discussed and advised Pyro to wave into active hostile to help FS, Flogger's excuse was that it was not him or protector advising and so it didn't count even though it was the bb leader who had researched and was actively dealing with the situation on behalf of BB so in light of this, it's hardly fair to focus on the non-leader players advice.
The definition of ignore that comes up on google is "refuse to take notice of or acknowledge; disregard intentionally." Since BB read his cf requests but did not respond or acknowledge them, I called that ignoring. When you made an issue of this word, I instead simply said "did not respond" to appease you. Now you are again bringing up ignoring as if it's some terrible word, but it actually fits what happened reasonably well according to the first Google definition.
I specifically characterized the quote I pulled as being from floggers post (which is still available for all) and also as being the last thing an emeriti leader said on the subject. Generally, when an issue is discussed, the statements at the end are the conclusion and the advise given after the discussion. You're just mad that you were shown to be dead *wrong* and the leader advice was indeed to threaten to raze. A non-leader did later suggest that Bour only wait 3 hours to raze if they don't answer or try to delay. It should be noted that there were 14 people in that channel at the time. When BB's council discussed and advised Pyro to wave into active hostile to help FS, Flogger's excuse was that it was not him or protector advising and so it didn't count even though it was the bb leader who had researched and was actively dealing with the situation on behalf of BB so in light of this, it's hardly fair to focus on the non-leader players advice.
But the issue right here is I didnt specify any person, neither did you. So you still brought up one line that supports your own case and didnt post the whole conversation (which you *****ed about to flogger not posting the context).
jdorje 6:17 PM
if he's going to farm bour next
it's bour that should be razing them
cerberusv6.66 7:42 PM
give them at most 3 hours to respond
start killing if they don't answer or try to delay
imo
But as you can see from above quote, its not "Should threaten to raze them" its "Should raze them" (omg lol we can both play the quotes out of context game!!). But as said you didnt specify who said what, you made a blanket statement.
Notice "They" or is "They" a word for Emeriti leadership in your world? Its funny how you change the story as you get confronted.They advised the #1 province to get a cf with BB including threatening to raze if BB refused.
Where does it state that you have to respond within a certain timeframe to be considered ignoring? I dont see that, please, point it out where it says "If they dont have responded within 4 hours they are ignoring you"-line. There is none, so your take on the matter is still at fault. There is nothing that requires you to give an response straight away even if asked, there is no time frame mentioned either, neither is 4 hours a reasonable time frame.The definition of ignore that comes up on google is "refuse to take notice of or acknowledge; disregard intentionally." Since BB read his cf requests but did not respond or acknowledge them, I called that ignoring. When you made an issue of this word, I instead simply said "did not respond" to appease you. Now you are again bringing up ignoring as if it's some terrible word, but it actually fits what happened reasonably well according to the first Google definition.
Also, I dont get mad over Utopia, getting mad would be trying to force people to quit kingdoms cause your ego was hurt. ;)
I did specifically state that the last thing a leader said on the subject was:
jdorje 6:19 PM
"if we cf them, bour is dead and that is bad for us so if i were bour i'd go get the cf now with threats of postwar hitting if they refuse"
and I pointed out that a non leader did suggest only giving 3 hours if they don't answer or try to delay.
Where does it state that you have to not respond or acknowledge something for an infinite time to be considered ignoring. Generally, if you request a response and don't get one after it is heard, that is considered being ignored. If a mother tells their child to clean their room and the child instead sits and plays video games for 4 hours without responding, people would call that ignoring. This is the common usage of the word and supported by the first definition from google of the word. I believe you are a non-native English speaker so perhaps you have unusual concepts of what some English words mean. I think the real problem though is that you are just grasping at straws and so instead focus your argument on the word ignored (that I haven't even been using in posts for weeks.)
You can continue your trolling and word games.
he is still yapping with his wall of text no one cares to read.. I told you we should have taken them down to 10k acres any more was way to kind
Where? Point it out to me where int this line does it state what you claim?I did specifically state that the last thing a leader said on the subject was:
They advised the #1 province to get a cf with BB including threatening to raze if BB refused.
I see, you are confused, must be hard for you to mix up posts like that.and I pointed out that a non leader did suggest only giving 3 hours if they don't answer or try to delay.
Woah, you say I grasp after straws when your open argument is a throwback. So, you never consider that the matter is being discussed or do you always think your way is the only correct way to do things? But thats a different context, Childcare is different than Utopia. If a customer mails a company and dont get a answer until 1 day later, did they ignore him? Or was it just that they looked up the matter and then proceed to give an response? Yea, I am not native english speaker, I have it as my third language and I still grasp the word "Ignore" better than you. :( I think anyone would agree with me that a lack of respons within a timeframe of 4 hours isnt considered ignoring in this context. Even you admitted 4 hours was too short of a time period.Where does it state that you have to not respond or acknowledge something for an infinite time to be considered ignoring. Generally, if you request a response and don't get one after it is heard, that is considered being ignored. If a mother tells their child to clean their room and the child instead sits and plays video games for 4 hours without responding, people would call that ignoring. This is the common usage of the word and supported by the first definition from google of the word. I believe you are a non-native English speaker so perhaps you have unusual concepts of what some English words mean. I think the real problem though is that you are just grasping at straws and so instead focus your argument on the word ignored (that I haven't even been using in posts for weeks.)
I think the real problem is that you complain that people bring things up that you dont like, but every chance you get you try to turn into a discussion again. Bringing up the same "argument" over and over again. Heres a pro tip, if you dont want things discussed, dont bring them up.
Yeah, because posting with facts that contradict lies from trolls is obviously good justification to deal break and gangbang a kingdom down to 10k acres.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote