CR vs AMA

[Elit]

He wanted to be #3, with 3 of the largest banks, with about 20+k acres in whoring provs due to war, with a cf with all but legacy and any other kd he thought he could still rape in war with the guarantee that he would never raze any acres. And this of course is only if it was a deal he actually wanted and not just something he'd entertain to nesta/cj while a deal much different was being offered at the same time. 1 day later no more provs had been pk'd but he was sufficiently small where a deal was offered that would still have clauses in it to not go over a certain size but wouldn't require the razing of acres. He rejected this one because he demanded that the deal not end with a mp between rage and ama but a WW for ama. Agreeing to a deal that gives a WW to 1 kd is clearly against game rules and so his proposal was rejected.

Its not my fault you rejected deal what we agree with Nesta and after it we declare Rage. You constant stall all diplo and situation change. Deal made 24h ago can look different now.

[Korp]

Agreeing to a deal that gives a WW to 1 kd is clearly against game rules and so his proposal was rejected.

Agreeing to any kind of outcome of the war is against the game rules not just warwin for one kd. :P

[Greaser]

Agreeing to any kind of outcome of the war is against the game rules not just warwin for one kd. :P

I for one would welcome the moderators opinion here. The whole 12v1 GB into a war is already pretty "fuzzy" territory when it comes to the game's "wishful" standards on morals and ethics. Especially considering the turn of events and the blatant evidence that this has gone from serving a justifiable purpose on behalf of the sanctity of "sportsmanship" to obvious hateful spite and vengeance. I don't see how 2 kingdoms agreeing on an outcome that's due to ending the current situation is any different, especially if it leads to a constructive outcome for all players involved.

[American Badass]

Agreed.

The first statement might be true, and I will leave that to cJ/Nesta to address because it's not my business. However, this is not really relevant at this point, because that was the agreement made between Havoc and Pyros. We're not squeaky clean either, but it is already assumed that all parties are guilty of some form of wrong-doing or shady play.

Your second one is misleading. It is not because we were told to raze AMA's banks that we opted out of GB. More likely is the idea that enough is enough, and there was no longer a need to do so.

We had all agreed to be in this until AMA cfed everyone that was involved within the GB. So basically Pyro went back on their word as an agreement everyone was happy with was not made.

(Btw what has Rage done this age that has been shady?)


[10:20] <&maximouse> CR will keep their word
[10:20] <@munk> wtf
[10:21] <@munk> i thought elit was cooler
[10:21] <&maximouse> and in no way will this action against ama be used to gain any advantage over pyro
[10:21] <&maximouse> munk, just focus on getting everybody acces:)
[10:21] <@NesTa13> we are here to make a stand. but I want the commitment of everyone to destroy them

======================================================================================

[10:27] <@NesTa13> just so we're on same page, if ama starts razing us full force and cr keeps chipping up the land. such that we fall to 140k and near like #3 spot. and cr ends back at 180k. how do we fix it? we dont want cr to landdrop back to 140k. because that means no cushion over #3
[10:27] <@munk> k
[10:27] <@munk> afk
[10:27] <@munk> bai!
02[10:28] * @munk has quit IRC (Quit: zzzzz...)
[10:28] <&maximouse> nesta, if that happens CR will keep going at ama untill they are all dead
[10:28] <@NesTa13> this is a very real situation
[10:28] <&maximouse> and after that we drop to the size your on aswell
[10:28] <&maximouse> or smaller
[10:29] <&maximouse> and I dont think its a realistic situation
[10:29] <&maximouse> once we declare they got -75 gains hitting out
[10:29] <@NesTa13> I rather cr returns acres?
[10:29] <&maximouse> if they dont focus on us it just means they go down 4 times faster
[10:29] <@NesTa13> like my point above
[10:29] <&maximouse> good aswell
[10:30] <&maximouse> you can get the acres then from us to fix it
01[10:30] <@AmericanBadass> Anri solution to tag "Fair Play" everyone so no one wins crown IMO is actually good to make a point
01[10:30] <@AmericanBadass> This way we can war after and anyone winning does not matter
[10:30] <&maximouse> and we cf after that to nulify relations
01[10:30] <@AmericanBadass> Then AMA can do wtf they want
[10:30] <@NesTa13> ok so I'll decide when time comes
03[10:30] <&maximouse> ab I like it, but too many people still value the crown at this point
01[10:30] <@AmericanBadass> (If ama continues being ****s etc)
[10:31] <@NesTa13> im more along the lines where we finish the age with eg. cr fair play or pyro fair play
[10:31] <&maximouse> nesta, you have my word that I will make CR do everything needed to compensate you guys if elit goes after you
[10:31] <@NesTa13> at least crown is still there and we know there's support of those who joined in the fair play movement
01[10:31] <@AmericanBadass> It'll highlight who actually is in this for the long run and not a cheap crown. We have seen what happened to EJ and SWEA when they ****ed over their allies
[10:31] <&maximouse> and to make sure you will be in the best position possible after this is all over
01[10:32] <@AmericanBadass> if someone would want to change their name last tick, it shows they'll never be trusted again and can have a cheap ****ty crown for their reputations to be destroyed
[10:32] <@NesTa13> ok I'll take your word for it maxi. we're going in full force
01[10:32] <@AmericanBadass> and expect zero help in future
[10:32] <&maximouse> yeah, we can and should unite under 1 name eoa no matter what
[10:33] <@NesTa13> how do we do opening

[American Badass]

The issue is that when you agree to something like a gb you aren't the one who get's to say when enough is enough, it's the other kd(in this case ama). You may have discussed a deal with them but you certainly didn't finalize it. Yesterday we discussed a deal with them that even people who are opposed to the GB thought was reasonable(wouldn't even need to raze cows). They rejected it because they demanded that Rage WD so as to give them a free WW.

O yeah that was the other deal Elit wanted recently and still wants. He wanted a WW so he can drop out of the Land/NW chart. Obviously like stated here that is aganst the game rules and we will not warrant **** play.

We will NOT help influence another chart to save our own one. Before this war and after the Havoc one we offered to land drop AMA to then be in a position to EARN the honorWW crown but they declined that offer.

I for one would welcome the moderators opinion here. The whole 12v1 GB into a war is already pretty "fuzzy" territory when it comes to the game's "wishful" standards on morals and ethics. Especially considering the turn of events and the blatant evidence that this has gone from serving a justifiable purpose on behalf of the sanctity of "sportsmanship" to obvious hateful spite and vengeance. I don't see how 2 kingdoms agreeing on an outcome that's due to ending the current situation is any different, especially if it leads to a constructive outcome for all players involved.

We are sticking to the rules within this GB. If the game developers were against hitting into a war, you would not be able to do it. Maybe the developers need to add this as a feature but then more and more people would have fake wars.

I think everyone can tell here Rage won't WD from this war so if we do, that is shady, but that will not be happening. The admin leave us to police our own servers effectively being told to get on playing with the tools we are given. This is what we are doing.

[Nightmare_]

We had all agreed to be in this until AMA cfed everyone that was involved within the GB. So basically Pyro went back on their word as an agreement everyone was happy with was not made.

(Btw what has Rage done this age that has been shady?)

Yes, I will agree with this. The question that could be asked is, "was Pyro justified in going back on its word, given the circumstances behind its decision?" The answer to that will depend on who you ask, and it is by no means black and white (as most things aren't).

As far as Rage goes, participating in GB is already a form of "wrong-doing," but one that has been justified and was done in retaliation. Rage has also stonewalled negotiations, from what I've seen, at least until Pyros decided to leave and people consequently became more reasonable. These are minor things, but that is what I mean when I say "in some form." I will say that I don't know much about what Rage has done this age, so I don't have the right to say anything else regarding this.

[Korp]

We are sticking to the rules within this GB. If the game developers were against hitting into a war, you would not be able to do it. Maybe the developers need to add this as a feature but then more and more people would have fake wars.

Wanting MP is as much against the rules as wanting to WW.

[American Badass]

Wanting MP is as much against the rules as wanting to WW.

An MP effects no honor/land.

[American Badass]

Yes, I will agree with this. The question that could be asked is, "was Pyro justified in going back on its word, given the circumstances behind its decision?" The answer to that will depend on who you ask, and it is by no means black and white (as most things aren't).

As far as Rage goes, participating in GB is already a form of "wrong-doing," but one that has been justified and was done in retaliation. Rage has also stonewalled negotiations, from what I've seen, at least until Pyros decided to leave and people consequently became more reasonable. These are minor things, but that is what I mean when I say "in some form." I will say that I don't know much about what Rage has done this age, so I don't have the right to say anything else regarding this.

We have always been reasonable. I said if it called an end to everything just give AMA the crown if it means that much to them (If they never recalled something that happened this age or prior).

[guard14n]

the sad part is that Rage cant even beat AMA with us havng 7 provinces PK-ed and 24 players currently online (most of the killed are still in protection and one provinces is yet to be made) How bad do u have to be to not be able to win vs a beaten kd with players and army advantage alone? U have no right to call urselfs rage anymore ... this is pathetic :D All are scared from ama when we have 2 arms and 4 ribs broken .... funny how do u think u will feal when we heal next age. Ally with simians and rusty to cover ur behind :D + havoc i suppose just to be sure u are surrounded of backstabbers!


Cudoes to Pyro for doing the right thing!

[Korp]

An MP effects no honor/land.

That has no relevancy to the case, its still as much against the rules as wanting a WW:

[Avalanche]

That has no relevancy to the case, its still as much against the rules as wanting a WW:

How is wanting a mutual peace the same?
To get a mutual peace both parties have to agree. There's no way to force it. One person offers and the other accepts or they don't. It's nothing like making a deal for ww. The only way to get mutual peace is by making a deal to get one.

[topsy's revenge]

I've pm'd bishop to see if it would be rule breaking. Either way MP is clearly the most reasonable outcome of the war within the context of a cf that ends gb.

edit: what avalanche said. You can't MP without agreeing to MP.

[Palem]

There is a difference between arranging a war to end and exchanging a war result for other things, although admittedly, I'm not totally sure this stuff falls.

[Elit]

Dont know why all try to play smart with words. Get SN and check AMA paper. Say if you see there fake war :P
We are giving our best consider situation and i think we are doing decent enough for force WW or WD with better DMG.