#2 province grande mucca deleted

[Bishop]

Interested in a war? It could be beneficial for both of us... I'll agree to not hit you and then we're both free to bottomfeed and grow while our kds duke it out ;)

^^ fits our definition of a fake war. Tough luck.

Is that out of context somehow?

[Blaine]

Interested in a war? It could be beneficial for both of us... I'll agree to not hit you and then we're both free to bottomfeed and grow while our kds duke it out ;)

^^ fits our definition of a fake war. Tough luck.

Is that out of context somehow?

Still doesn't answer my fair question :(

[Bishop]

its been answered already.

[DHaran]

It was his way of getting the guy to agree to war. They couldn't even break each other.....

Without that agreement (which is essentially fluff) you have nothing to go on. That's where I see a problem, because the agreement is your reasoning for deleting him, yet without it the actions they made would have been the same. In both cases no actual rules were broken, just a few words to ease the guy into a war that get construed as FWing.

[Blaine]

I have read the whole thread and I can't see the answer, could you please point me to right direction?

[Bishop]

"And who says he wasn't going to hit the guy anyway?"
^^ Ryan.

Again, out of context.

Interested in a war? It could be beneficial for both of us... I'll agree to not hit you and then we're both free to bottomfeed and grow while our kds duke it out ;)

It was his way of getting the guy to agree to war. They couldn't even break each other.....

Lets not **** about. Ryan just said that he did not tell the guy he wouldn't hit him, no? Have i taken anything out of context in the above? no.

[Sadliar]

The powers that be are already too heavily invested in the decision they made, so they feel they can't back out now. Just accept their failure and move on.

[DHaran]

I stand by the stance that in the exact same scenario, without the agreement to not trade hits, you would see this as legal. If what they are PHYSICALLY doing ingame is not a fake war, how can a few non-binding words change that definition?

[Bishop]

The powers that be are already too heavily invested in the decision they made, so they feel they can't back out now. Just accept their failure and move on.

I have already stated that we are happy with it. Don't try and speak for us, thanks.

[Bishop]

I stand by the stance that in the exact same scenario, without the agreement to not trade hits, you would see this as legal. If what they are PHYSICALLY doing ingame is not a fake war, how can a few non-binding words change that definition?

You digress. Post 291 shows a blatant untruth by Ryan.

[DHaran]

That didn't respond to my comment at all.

[I_am_Spartacus]

Interested in a war? It could be beneficial for both of us... I'll agree to not hit you and then we're both free to bottomfeed and grow while our kds duke it out ;)

^^ fits our definition of a fake war. Tough luck.

Is that out of context somehow?

Yes it is, as there's prior proof from my previous war arrangements that I use bluff war terms to get wars for my KD. Probably 35+ sent messages to other KD's with war terms that wouldn't restrict or negatively effect my KD in any way. In fact, some of those KD's have spoken for themselves and backed that in here.

As stated by you, tricking KD's into war is not a punishable offense.

[I_am_Spartacus]

10[20:32] <Ryan> it really wasnt even a 2 prov nap
10[20:32] <Ryan> it's a bluff war term i use to get all my wars
10[20:32] <Ryan> a) i wont send dragons in this war (not in range anyways)
10[20:32] <Ryan> b) i wont hit you in this war (cant break anyways)
10[20:33] <Ryan> war terms that dont negatively restrict my kd in any way
10[20:33] <Ryan> a2) I could get in dragon range by razing buildings / releasing some troops but it's not economically or strategically efficient
10[20:33] <Ryan> b2) i could get the offense to hit you but it's not economically or strategically efficient for myself or my kd
10[20:34] <Ryan> so I don't get why bishop gets to dictate what I should or shouldn't be doing in war in terms of strategy.
[20:35] <DHaran> i made the point who says you werent gonna hit the guy?
[20:35] <DHaran> tricking ppl into war is a FW now?
10[20:36] <Ryan> tricking people isnt a fw, bishop was fine with my no dragon term
10[20:36] <Ryan> but then he didnt want to understand how not hitting someone is the same concept
[20:38] <DHaran> my problem is the actions themselves broke no rules, but a few words about an agreement to not trade hits suddenly makes it illegal
[20:38] <DHaran> thats bogus
[20:39] <DHaran> if they still intervened, then they are completely deciding your targets for you in war, which is unacceptable

I'm not going to send dragons because it's not worth it.
I'm not going to hit X player because it's not worth it.

Will I use that as ammo to trick these KD's into war? Yes. Like I said before I'm a bottled air salesman. I sell that crap all day.

[Bishop]

Yes it is, as there's prior proof from my previous war arrangements that I use bluff war terms to get wars for my KD. Probably 35+ sent messages to other KD's with war terms that wouldn't restrict or negatively effect my KD in any way. In fact, some of those KD's have spoken for themselves and backed that in here.

As stated by you, tricking KD's into war is not a punishable offense.

You stated that I took you out of context by claiming you said you would not attack that prov. I then posted your mail where you said you would not attack that prov. Stop being hypocritical.

Encouraging people to break the games rules is actionable.

That didn't respond to my comment at all.

Allow me to respond, since you seem keen to move away ;) Stating " i am going to break teh games rules (eg make multiple accounts and attack you)" will result in action whether you do it or not.

[I_am_Spartacus]

Both involved players referred to it as a fake war. Where is the ambiguity?

Excuse me? Fabricating lies to back your side now?

Interested in a war? It could be beneficial for both of us... I'll agree to not hit you and then we're both free to bottomfeed and grow while our kds duke it out ;)

^^ fits our definition of a fake war. Tough luck.

Is that out of context somehow?

I never referred to it as a fake war? That looks like a request for war with a proposal of potential bluff terms.