3000K off will raze retal ALL (8:9) v HaVoC AT WAR PSO(3:12)

[Bart of Sparta]

Lol, weren't Bart all up in arms last age when CR razed into war after a KD dodged them after agreeing to war and therefore cost CR not only gc but also land and scientists. Geez, it's almost a little hypocritical but that couldnt be, right?

Totally different situation lol. Different chart positions different things at stake. Also CR did not offer WSK a free CF which WSK refused. Also, CR razed for 15K land, we razed for 200 and already CFed.

[Palem]

And created an unfair warring advantage over their opponent via gc.

That's an unfair presumption. Did they have some sort of agreement to not steal gc pre-war that was broken? Do you have any proof that only one side stole gc before the war?

As far as I can tell there's no reason to say them stealing gc before the war was in any way "unfair" to their opponent

[Korp]

Totally different situation lol. Different chart positions different things at stake. Also CR did not offer WSK a free CF which WSK refused. Also, CR razed for 15K land, we razed for 200 and already CFed.

And how much acres did you take when you dealbroke Cr...?

[Raged0411]

Your razing a already chained prov and not even hitting the one supposably stealing from you. How does that make sense.

And the whole 200 land argument is dumb. He only has 300 and is recovering from chain while u guys are holding him down.

[Bart of Sparta]

Game Date March 19 of YR2
Real Date Tue, 28 Mar at 12:54 GMT+00:00
Sender King Shane the Blessed of MyStiC MaYheM (3:12)
Recipient Queen Outplayerz the Sorceress of Outplayerz Empire (8:9)
Subject Re:Yo
> yes u should have but ohwell sh*t happens n we have a cf n not like we could war ETC to sort anything out lol


Queen Outplayerz the Sorceress of Outplayerz Empire (8:9) said: > >
Well that's a start :P

For my part, perhaps I should've waited for some more diplo before taking such drastic actions.

Anyways, can we wrap up this EOA CF now?

> > > King Shane the Blessed of MyStiC MaYheM (3:12) said: > > > > > > > > >so u did sorry about that my bad , would of been we my kd first started waving etc n i would of been busy etc well i am sorry for that




Now just when I thought we were getting somewhere... the guy simply refuses to sign lol. GL!

[Tedurur]

Totally different situation lol. Different chart positions different things at stake. Also CR did not offer WSK a free CF which WSK refused. Also, CR razed for 15K land, we razed for 200 and already CFed.

Of course its a different situation, CR lost much more than the 20M gc you lost. Still, the crux of the matter is that you got your panties in a bunch last age when CR razed into war but now you are doing the same, that makes you a hypocrite and there isnt really anything you can say about it that will make you any less of a hypocrite.

[RollinHammer]

I think bart acted Perfectly in the laid out scenario. Diplo was attempted - ignored and consequences came from that.

[Band of Horses]

That's an unfair presumption. Did they have some sort of agreement to not steal gc pre-war that was broken? Do you have any proof that only one side stole gc before the war?

As far as I can tell there's no reason to say them stealing gc before the war was in any way "unfair" to their opponent

I don't believe it's an unfair presumption. It is a presumption though. It is in my experience a common occurrence in the warring tier and a problematic one at that. So until there is proof that the other side robbed ooh to finance my stance remains. You're asking me to prove a negative in only one side stole gc, you do realize that right?

[Korp]

I think bart acted Perfectly in the laid out scenario. Diplo was attempted - ignored and consequences came from that.

So not wanting to diplo with Bart makes it okey to hit into war? lol.

[Palem]

I don't believe it's an unfair presumption. It is a presumption though. It is in my experience a common occurrence in the warring tier and a problematic one at that. So until there is proof that the other side robbed ooh to finance my stance remains. You're asking me to prove a negative in only one side stole gc, you do realize that right?

No, you made a claim with a lack of evidence to support that claim. There's nothing implied from the fact one side stole gc pre-war that the situation was unfair. I'm simply asking you to support your claim

[Korp]

I don't believe it's an unfair presumption. It is a presumption though. It is in my experience a common occurrence in the warring tier and a problematic one at that. So until there is proof that the other side robbed ooh to finance my stance remains. You're asking me to prove a negative in only one side stole gc, you do realize that right?

Using "experince" as a argument is rather hilarious though consider your identity is not being verified. In my experince I never have seen agreement that people arent allowed to steal gold pre-conflict or during conflict.

[Band of Horses]

That's an unfair presumption. Did they have some sort of agreement to not steal gc pre-war that was broken? Do you have any proof that only one side stole gc before the war?

As far as I can tell there's no reason to say them stealing gc before the war was in any way "unfair" to their opponent

No, you made a claim with a lack of evidence to support that claim. There's nothing implied from the fact one side stole gc pre-war that the situation was unfair. I'm simply asking you to support your claim

Above post yellow is asking to prove a negative. There was nothing about fairness in that question you posed. Surely you can say both have the ability to rob ooh so it is fair, but it is my opinion that robbing ooh is wrong and if the other kingdom is noble they wont and therefore it is unfair. In the same regard Havoc could have someone raze into this war much like Bartija is doing. Bartija never had any agreement with havoc to not raze into their wars.

Using "experince" as a argument is rather hilarious though consider your identity is not being verified. In my experince I never have seen agreement that people arent allowed to steal gold pre-conflict or during conflict.

My stance on this topic is unwavering. You can even go back to Abi plundering Emeriti, my stance is unchanged. Is yours? In my experience I have never seen an agreement that people aren't allowed to hack the other kingdoms accounts pre-conflict or during conflict.

[Palem]

Above post yellow is asking to prove a negative. There was nothing about fairness in that question you posed. Surely you can say both have the ability to rob ooh so it is fair, but it is my opinion that robbing ooh is wrong and if the other kingdom is noble they wont and therefore it is unfair. In the same regard Havoc could have someone raze into this war much like Bartija is doing. Bartija never had any agreement with havoc to not raze into their wars.

I think any kingdom that actually attacks each other lacks morals and anyone that was truly noble would play passively. Therefore attacking people is unfair.

See how my opinions on how the game "should" be played don't really carry any weight regarding whether something is objectively unfair? You're free to have the opinion that it's cheap play and you would rather not play that way, but handicapping yourself doesn't give everyone else the obligation to handicap themselves in return.

Back to the point, I could understand if they had some agreement that neither side would rob anyone pre-war, but as far as I have understood, their only complaint was someone hitting into their war.

[MyNameIsMatija]

Keep posting, this is great :D

[Band of Horses]

I think any kingdom that actually attacks each other lacks morals and anyone that was truly noble would play passively. Therefore attacking people is unfair.

See how my opinions on how the game "should" be played don't really carry any weight regarding whether something is objectively unfair? You're free to have the opinion that it's cheap play and you would rather not play that way, but handicapping yourself doesn't give everyone else the obligation to handicap themselves in return.

Back to the point, I could understand if they had some agreement that neither side would rob anyone pre-war, but as far as I have understood, their only complaint was someone hitting into their war.

I could understand if they had an agreement that no one would hit into their war, but as far as I have understood, they did not. And handicapping yourself to only hit in and out of non war stance doesn't give everyone else the obligation to handicap themselves in return.