Term Interpretation Consultancy

[Goodwitch]

Because Im the only one capable of bringing life to this forum! Also had to put some issues on the radar!

things you will achieve with this:

-putting devs into lose/lose situation as no matter if or how they react will leave many dissatisfied
-potentially scaring off new players before they really even get started
-furthering the disappointment and disgust in many players that would like to see the top tier as an example of how to do it right rather than how lie and cheat the best

while your posts are often amusing and mostly entertaining, this one did not hit that mark. Your usual talent of pointing out flaws in a productive way got overshadowed by your self centered agenda. No one is asking you to be humble but you would be well advised to keep your feet planted firmly on the ground rather than having your nose stuck in the clouds. You made it up there, but you didn't do it alone. Be careful you don't break the backs of those you used as stepping stones, it's a long way to down to fall.

[Elldallan]

So the rules only apply to the war win charts? that's what your saying?

Uhm no, but it applies to kingdoms and provinces who try to game the system, a land kd who trades in free land in exchange for giving away honor/ww would be punished as well.
It has so far never applied to cf deals and "fair" war deals, ie no dragons etc and I don't really see a reason to change that policy, the players should be able to interact with eachother in whatever way they choose unless they try to game the system.
For example there is absolutely nothing that prevents ww kingdoms from making cf deals, thus your attempt to imply that it only applies to war win charts is a strawman.

So just because something hasn't been done before means we can never do it.

Absolutely correct but there has to be a good reason to change more than a decade of "policy" and I don't think that this is it.

In Game behavior like fake war or foul Language, there is a whole section on "Language & Attitude" which clearly applies to in game behavior

Yes because those things are specifically mentioned as prohibited, there is nothing gray about those actions. To suddenly start using a non-specific part of the rules in a never previously used manner is something completely different. In the case of fake wars that change was something that was communicated ages in advance.
First the admins said that they viewed fake wars as bad and that they'd like to prevent them but currently doesn't have the tools to do so effectively or consistently.
Then several ages later they came back and said that we now have the tools and therefore fake wars are now prohibited and will be actioned.
It wasn't something that came suddenly and stealthily, it was communicated very loudly over a long period of time.

I agree. however when one is placed infront of you for the admin to weigh in on you should really take some sort of action

Like I said, the rules have never been enforced that way before and any change to ban such things has to be communicated well in advance, the admins can't just decide from one day to another that cf's are suddenly an ethics violation after decades of that not having been the case.

Am I not part of the community? This wreaks of ethical violations. The Mods clearly see this as he made it public and are commenting on it. We are policing by telling the admins the community sees this as a ToS violation

Sure you are and as another member of the community I don't agree with you and I don't think that the admins should act of it because that's never been how the ethics rules have been applied in the past.

Plus the "ethical play" rule is further explained in that section:

The operators of the game aim to maintain the highest standards of ethics within the game. Any instance of inappropriate language, manipulation of bugs, or acts of deception/fraud can result in immediate removal from the game. We rely on our users to help us enforce these rules and provide an enjoyable gaming environment for users of all ages and backgrounds.

"the highest standards of ethics within the game" specifically refer to what's written afterwards and which I've underlined, it's not a catch all clause, it has specific conditions.
The deception/fraud part has never previously been intended to stop unethical behaviour that is strictly limited to in-game actions but is there more to allow the admins to take actions against attempts to defraud users of their money, credit card information or their accounts etc.

[Mike^]

Im sad to read this, infact this is all my fault, i in the mist of the night made a eoa cf with ASF after him and others had said we would get GB, i made a mistake and many now hurts becouse of it, i should never have allowed this to happen, and for this im very sorry, i consider this my largest mistake in my 50+ active ages and well 4-5 semmi active.

A mistake i will never make again that is for sure.

This should never ever been a topic for this im sorry.

[Elldallan]

If you want to argue the semantics of a NAP (non aggression pact) by saying its OK to have your friends it someone prepping to war you before it expires (and encouraging them to DB the target in the process), then the semantics of what it means to compete when youre only barred from competing with 1 KD are up in the air too.

I have no idea what's written in the agreement and I'll therefore refrain from having an opinion of it, NAP is a general catchphrase for the cf deals kingdoms make and therefore the semantics of the catchphrase is irrelevant. But if the term non aggression was used in the text of the agreement then I do agree that it would constitute a violation.

[Pillz]

A tax in utopia is an involuntary payment typically given by a kingdom that you are in position to farm should they refuse to pay for a cf.

I'd say giving resources away to kingdoms competing for a crown is chart shaping, and against the spirit of the rules. It discourages the kingdoms involved from playing the game. Of course it is their choice to give them away without making you pay any cost. The results is an artificial, user-imposed cap on hostile actions with an outflow of resources that help decide the winner.

Bart and RoO had eoa cf and worked together for RoO to "borrow" a large amount of Bart's cow land specifically to hit down my kingdom by using the combined resources of both kingdoms. Others agreed that this did not seem fair, especially with Bart's non compete, but even without that.

What is unfair about it? You've posted, yourself in this very thread in fact, that you manipulated explore mechanics so as to explore the most possible acres on the fewest possible provinces. You and RoO were of 'similar' composition and had an expiring CF. if RoO needs land to fight you, I fail to see the relevance of where that land comes from? If you (the general you) can scour the server begging for acres, and pussy **** kingdoms in BB are going to pay you ever single opportunity that arises, what is the distinction between that and Bart voluntarily giving land to RoO?

For god's sake the kingdom you helped found and are so fond of defending on the forums, Emeriti, actually offers free CFs to kingdoms around the server with the oh-so-kind offer that the aforementioned kingdoms can ask Emeriti to take land they don't want. Which seems very voluntary to me. Will Emeriti be returning all the land it's obtained with this method?

No, you just like to create your own rules, apply them selectively, interpret them as partially as possible, and manipulate others to dance to your tune as with the RoO situation. Bart's non-compete didn't really have any baring on other banks, just you.

It'd be like if I would "loan" 40k cow land to Emeriti before they fought BB. That would be an unfair move and one I wouldn't do, but if I did do it, I would fully expect everyone else to agree it was unfair. Certainly these things are different and I'm sure you can see that if you try.

The key difference being that RoO needed the land to war you. Emeriti did not need land to war BB at any point this age.

Absolutes rarely work. I seek reasonableness.

That you seek 'reasonableness' is patently false. You seek an advantage, like everybody does, and disguise it as 'fair'.

[StratOcastle]

Moral of this story? Never trust Bart(!); just raze him down as soon as you see him; should you be able too.

We get along fine. I think it's that I don't compete, but I probably should.

What I find interesting is the love and lure of diplomacy for these guys. Can you imagine spending an amount of time on irc discussing diplomacy with either of these guys? My entire end of the conversation would be "what?"

But I guess that's the motion-lotion for smashing the acre barrier.

In my world you're 350 acres when you follow orders and tens of thousands when you don't. Well, maybe not 10s but if it's acres or bust I'm cool with that. After a boring age trying to secure wars I'm certainly sympathetic to the idea of Drama Per Acre.

The good side is that Aquaseafoam has a new challenge: cornering Bart, diplomatically. - It's the only non-compete CF I would agree to.

"You may attack me from all sides but I'm not doing diplo." ;)

Edit: almost forgot ~ The correct province count is 5. It's the standard, like weight divisions in boxing: 5 or less, 10 or less, 15 or less, 20 or less, 25 or less.

I'd like to see these standards to get past the wall penalty. I'm guessing you just live with it, but we are talking about competition here.

[Minty]

You all stand for everything that's horrible with this game. This thread is a disgusting abomination of social interaction.

[Chanain]

Alright, here it is. I'm not licensed to practice in the World of Utopia, but what the hey. Let me know where to send my invoice.

Bart: Denial that 'interpretation' is required suggests that you don't actually understand how language works generally, much less contract language specifically. Interpretation is the process by which we ascribe meaning to words. Period. All contracts require interpretation. Issues tend to arise when people disagree as to the interpretation, and, moreover, when more than one interpretation is possible. What you're *really* asserting is that you maintain a specific interpretation of the language, and that you believe it's the only reasonable interpretation.

ASF: What you're talking about, when you want to bring in previous discussions to inform the spirit and intent of the agreement, you're referring to what we lawyers call 'parol evidence'. You can google the "Parol Evidence Rule" - and ignore anyone who spells it "Parole" - but the general idea is this: When interpreting a contract, we look to what's on the face of the contract, unless there are ambiguities on the face of the contract, in which parol evidence can be used to resolve those ambiguities.

If Bart were right that the terms are, on their face, unambiguously in his favour, then your context-based argument would have no real place.

And if he's wrong, and there is ambiguity (say, as regards the meaning of "compete"), then I don't think parol evidence is what you would want to look at. Bart's real problem, if I assume correctly that he was the one who crafted the language he's now relying upon, is a different legal interpretive doctrine: Contra proferentem - an ambiguity will be resolved against the interest of the one who drafted the language. This is a frequently-used rule of interpretation, basically incentivizing the side drafting the language to be as clear as possible, and ensuring that the language won't be left deliberately vague in order to leave open a favourable (to the drafter) course of action not apparently contemplated within the language of the contract. Which, really, appears to be *exactly* what Bart has done here.

So the first big question is what it means for Sparta to agree not to 'compete'. It seems to me that, without more, the concept of competition is sufficiently broad to capture the kind of scheming that ASF has alleged. It's a broad term, certainly. But the interesting question from a 'legal interpretation' point of view is the impact of the rather irregular parenthetical comments afterward: Are they in the nature of 'limiting language', restricting the broad language of 'competition' specifically to the contents of the parentheses? Or are they simply an interpretive guide as to how specific factual scenarios will be handled? This will be at the core of the interpretive dispute here.

Bart's position (if I may read it generously) is ultimately that the parenthetical remarks are impliedly limiting. I don't see that as being evident on the face of the language, and in fact I think that this position runs awry of the Whole Agreement rule of contract interpretation, as it would render the non-parenthetical language in clause 3 totally inoperative. So I don't think that position is sustainable. Even it were sustainable, however, the absence of express limiting language (i.e. stating that Sparta's obligation not to compete extends no further than the contents of the parenthetical remark) certainly leaves open the competing interpretation, that Sparta is assuming a much more expansive obligation not to compete.

So, in my view, the language unambiguously supports ASF's position. In the alternative, the interplay between the parenthetical remark and the non-parenthetical remark may create an ambiguity, but such ambiguity would still be resolved in ASF's favour, by reason of the doctrine of contra proferentem.

[Ovenmitt]

We get along fine. I think it's that I don't compete, but I probably should.

What I find interesting is the love and lure of diplomacy for these guys. Can you imagine spending an amount of time on irc discussing diplomacy with either of these guys? My entire end of the conversation would be "what?"

But I guess that's the motion-lotion for smashing the acre barrier.

In my world you're 350 acres when you follow orders and tens of thousands when you don't. Well, maybe not 10s but if it's acres or bust I'm cool with that. After a boring age trying to secure wars I'm certainly sympathetic to the idea of Drama Per Acre.

The good side is that Aquaseafoam has a new challenge: cornering Bart, diplomatically. - It's the only non-compete CF I would agree to.

"You may attack me from all sides but I'm not doing diplo." ;)

Edit: almost forgot ~ The correct province count is 5. It's the standard, like weight divisions in boxing: 5 or less, 10 or less, 15 or less, 20 or less, 25 or less.

I'd like to see these standards to get past the wall penalty. I'm guessing you just live with it, but we are talking about competition here.

[22:06] <AquaSeaFoam> hey
[22:06] <Ovenmitt> hm
[22:06] <AquaSeaFoam> can i talk to you about the deal Mike proposed?
[22:06] <Ovenmitt> beats me.
[22:07] <AquaSeaFoam> haha
[22:07] <AquaSeaFoam> good enough
[22:07] <Ovenmitt> we dont honestly have leadership
[22:07] <Ovenmitt> it's just a group of talking heads
[22:07] <Ovenmitt> i think of the 5 or 6 deals we have
[22:07] <Ovenmitt> they were made by 4 different people
[22:07] <AquaSeaFoam> so mike proposed that if we drop the land we gained in wars and ww's, you'd do the same along with barts land and bart also from his wars.
[22:07] <AquaSeaFoam> and we all eoa cf
[22:08] <Ovenmitt> is binar really that worried we're going to outcompete?
[22:08] <AquaSeaFoam> is that a serious offer?
[22:08] <AquaSeaFoam> this sort of stuff alarms everyone =]
[22:08] <AquaSeaFoam> the last two ages kingdoms were actioned for minor gc farming
[22:09] <AquaSeaFoam> let alone ten's of thousands of cow acres
[22:09] <Ovenmitt> good thing we have an ironclad cf with em, eh
[22:09] <AquaSeaFoam> but if mike's proposal was serious, i'm open to it. i can even delete my own province
[22:09] <AquaSeaFoam> i also had an ironclad non compete with bart that he broke
[22:09] <AquaSeaFoam> but whatever
[22:09] <Ovenmitt> wrong
[22:09] <Ovenmitt> you're noncompete was worded poorly
[22:10] <Ovenmitt> and i can break that down for you if youd like
[22:10] <Ovenmitt> where you dropped the ball
[22:10] <AquaSeaFoam> true, but there was a lot more discussion around it and in the irc discussion (i have the logs) he agreed to a general noncompete in full spirit
[22:10] <Ovenmitt> which at the end of the day has nothing to do with us
[22:10] <AquaSeaFoam> in fact he begged us for one and said he'd be our ally and help us for giving it to him
[22:11] <AquaSeaFoam> anyway, i'm just asking if mike's offer was real. if so i'm prepared to jsut delete my prov and be done with the drama
[22:12] <Ovenmitt> "[15:23] <&Heaven> 3. 8:9 will not compete for #1 land on individual prov charts with 8:13 (we will stay #2 so long as 8:13 has a prov on #1. Also if we are #1 and 8:13 is #2, we will make sure to drop to #2 allowing 8:13 to be #1).
[22:12] <Ovenmitt> [15:23] <&Heaven> in order for this part of our deal to be void, 8:13 can't have a prov in top 2"
[22:13] <Ovenmitt> your problem is you addressed bart as the competer
[22:13] <Ovenmitt> because you are bad at deals
[22:13] <AquaSeaFoam> yeah i know how it's worded ingame, but the irc log also has him agreing to a much more general version, regardless it doesn't matter
[22:13] <Ovenmitt> it could be worded with legal precision
[22:13] <Ovenmitt> it still has nothing to do with ME
[22:13] <Ovenmitt> or RoO
[22:13] <AquaSeaFoam> ok
[22:13] <Ovenmitt> because we have nothing to do with bart
[22:13] <Ovenmitt> or his nonsense
[22:13] <AquaSeaFoam> but that's not what i'm here to discuss
[22:13] <AquaSeaFoam> you just keep harpning on it
[22:14] <Ovenmitt> i'm really just sad for you
[22:14] <AquaSeaFoam> i'm here to discuss mike's proposal
[22:14] <Ovenmitt> and disappointed that binar would send you here
[22:14] <Ovenmitt> to grovel
[22:14] <Ovenmitt> to save face
[22:14] <Ovenmitt> when hec ould just contact me directly
[22:14] <AquaSeaFoam> binar didn't send me anywhere
[22:14] <Ovenmitt> i'll make you a better deal
[22:14] <Ovenmitt> you delete your entire kingdom
[22:14] <Ovenmitt> and we'll drop the acres.
[22:15] <AquaSeaFoam> ok, so mike's proposal wasn't real. that's all i needed to know, thanks. plan b it is
[22:15] <Ovenmitt> youd have to ask mike
[22:15] <Ovenmitt> im not mike
[22:16] <AquaSeaFoam> why are you such a dick?
[22:16] <Ovenmitt> i'm not being a dick, put yourself in my shoes
[22:16] <Ovenmitt> you've been thumping your chest all age
[22:16] <Ovenmitt> and all of the sudden when its unfavorable for you (obviously)
[22:16] <AquaSeaFoam> we haven't been sayign **** alla ge
[22:16] <AquaSeaFoam> we were anonymous
[22:16] <Ovenmitt> you're begging for deals
[22:16] <AquaSeaFoam> and we were offering you eoa cf when we had the advantage
[22:16] <Ovenmitt> Sender Marchioness River Tam the Rogue of Serenity (8:13)
[22:16] <Ovenmitt> Recipient The Wise Baron nomnom of Haagen Dazs (8:19)
[22:16] <Ovenmitt> Subject Never tell a lady no.
[22:16] <Ovenmitt> Hi,
[22:16] <Ovenmitt> Can I eat you?
[22:16] <Ovenmitt> The kingdoms begged me not to message you while intoxicated, but, I could really use some Haagen Daz, preferably rocky road flavored.
[22:16] <Ovenmitt> River [22:17] <AquaSeaFoam> lol. ok that's my wife
[22:17] <AquaSeaFoam> sorry
[22:17] <AquaSeaFoam> i didn't even know about that
[22:17] <AquaSeaFoam> she likes icecream
[22:18] <AquaSeaFoam> so apollogies, but it wasn't meant to be mean
[22:18] <Ovenmitt> i dont have the logs on this cpu of all the ones you've sent to mike
[22:18] <AquaSeaFoam> ingame?
[22:18] <Ovenmitt> but i can assure you we were never worried about your silly avians
[22:18] <Ovenmitt> yes
[22:18] <AquaSeaFoam> from lighthouse or serenity?
[22:19] <Ovenmitt> im not sure. hes posted most of them to our kd channel
[22:19] <AquaSeaFoam> you know, i think youw ere worried about our avians or you wouldn't resort to some of the most massive farmign the game has seen to be able to beat us :P
[22:19] <Ovenmitt> but my logs only go back 24h
[22:19] <AquaSeaFoam> but again, we offered you eoa cf before the farming
[22:20] <Ovenmitt> yes, you did
[22:20] <Ovenmitt> there was never consensus on it internally
[22:20] <Ovenmitt> mike couldnt speak for the kd
[22:20] <Ovenmitt> no more then anyone
[22:20] <Ovenmitt> because we have no (1) leadership
[22:20] <AquaSeaFoam> and previously in yr 3 i think it was, mike asked for eoa cf and our reply was just "it's still 4-5 weeks away, can we just see how things look closer and discuss again then?"
[22:20] <Ovenmitt> mike and mango wanted to cf
[22:20] <Ovenmitt> no one else did
[22:20] <Ovenmitt> i knew we'd stomp you regardless
[22:20] <AquaSeaFoam> it was a conversation/discussion, never a refusal
[22:20] <Ovenmitt> because 11>5
[22:20] <Ovenmitt> or 23>6
[22:20] <Ovenmitt> or whatever the case
[22:20] <Ovenmitt> yeah
[22:21] <Ovenmitt> there wasnt a refusal because interally it was never settled
[22:21] <Ovenmitt> until recently
[22:21] <AquaSeaFoam> i think you underestimate things in the scenario where you didn't farm bart
[22:21] <Ovenmitt> i dont
[22:21] <AquaSeaFoam> but again it doesn't matter that much because you were offered eoa cf
[22:21] <Ovenmitt> we'd destroy your gold hour 1
[22:21] <Ovenmitt> with fools gold
[22:21] <Ovenmitt> then beat you to deathw ith bounces
[22:21] <Ovenmitt> hostile over.
[22:21] <Ovenmitt> whether that took 24, 72h, a week, whatever
[22:21] <AquaSeaFoam> i'm really not trying to get in a pissing contest with you but i can give a brief overview
[22:22] <Ovenmitt> overview all you like, it isn't changing the reality of the situation
[22:22] <Ovenmitt> which is a: you wanting something
[22:22] <Ovenmitt> and b: you having nothing to offer in return
[22:22] <AquaSeaFoam> raze power is proportional to total kingdom land. we'd have been within 10% of you
[22:22] <AquaSeaFoam> our provs would have been significantly more pumped than your overall kd so we'd ahev actually had quite a bit more raze power
[22:22] <AquaSeaFoam> esp on avians and haflings
[22:23] <AquaSeaFoam> razes that break beat razes that bounce
[22:23] <AquaSeaFoam> again big adv to us
[22:23] <Ovenmitt> your HA, even on marquis, couldnt even break our dw
[22:23] <AquaSeaFoam> our avian could
[22:23] <Ovenmitt> sending 100% with 4 gens
[22:23] <Ovenmitt> sure, if he left 500k at home
[22:23] <Ovenmitt> lol
[22:23] <AquaSeaFoam> we'd have had 2 28k avians
[22:23] <Ovenmitt> right
[22:23] <AquaSeaFoam> you think an avian marquis on 8k acres can't braek your dwarves?[22:23] <AquaSeaFoam> 28k
[22:23] <Ovenmitt> without eating razes in return?
[22:23] <Ovenmitt> is that a joke?
[22:24] <AquaSeaFoam> yeah
[22:24] <AquaSeaFoam> unless you suicide your dwarves yeah
[22:24] <AquaSeaFoam> do the math
[22:24] <Ovenmitt> i think you're comically misguided
[22:24] <AquaSeaFoam> do the mah and get back to me
[22:24] <AquaSeaFoam> math
[22:24] <Ovenmitt> do the math on getting bounced by 2 mil off x10
[22:24] <Ovenmitt> and get back to me
[22:24] <Ovenmitt> on hwo much the dwarves would have to send out
[22:24] <Ovenmitt> lol
[22:25] <Ovenmitt> even in an imaginary world where 1 or even 2 out of 3 dwarves couldnt retal
[22:25] <Ovenmitt> you'd still lose
[22:25] <Ovenmitt> =/
[22:25] <AquaSeaFoam> you realize our bounces/breaks would be more than yours though right?
[22:25] <Ovenmitt> not only no
[22:25] <AquaSeaFoam> yes dwarves have nice BE
[22:25] <Ovenmitt> but not even close
[22:25] <AquaSeaFoam> why wouldn't they?
[22:25] <Ovenmitt> you lose on losses
[22:25] <Ovenmitt> you lose on attrition
[22:25] <Ovenmitt> you lose on gs
[22:25] <Ovenmitt> you lose on ticks/hour
[22:25] <Ovenmitt> you have no gold
[22:26] <Ovenmitt> given the original size difference
[22:26] <Ovenmitt> we'd just stay even or under on the meter
[22:26] <Ovenmitt> and win by eating away at you
[22:26] <Ovenmitt> because we'd proportionally always take more
[22:26] <AquaSeaFoam> mi think you'd have lost your bigs, and we'd ahve lost 1 prov
[22:26] <AquaSeaFoam> maybe 2
[22:26] <Ovenmitt> a 4 vs 15 contest is a war of time
[22:27] <Ovenmitt> the 4 always lose.
[22:27] <AquaSeaFoam> again, total land and total military matter more thant he number of generals
[22:27] <Ovenmitt> not how raze works
[22:27] <AquaSeaFoam> pretty sure it is
[22:27] <Ovenmitt> take it from a kd that has razed 50+ times this age already
[22:28] <Ovenmitt> its not.
[22:28] <AquaSeaFoam> the amount you kill ona raze is directly proportional to the amount of offense snet[22:28] <Ovenmitt> lolno.
[22:28] <AquaSeaFoam> yeah it actually is
[22:28] <Ovenmitt> no actually it isnt
[22:28] <AquaSeaFoam> how do you think it works then?
[22:28] <Ovenmitt> raze is a flat dmg attack based on relkdnw only
[22:29] <Ovenmitt> ignoring individual values
[22:29] <AquaSeaFoam> huh?
[22:29] <AquaSeaFoam> no it isnt
[22:29] <Ovenmitt> yes the **** it is, lol
[22:29] <Ovenmitt> are you serious?
[22:29] <AquaSeaFoam> yes
[22:29] <Ovenmitt> LOL
[22:29] <Ovenmitt> i'm embarassed for you
[22:29] <AquaSeaFoam> ask mango
[22:29] <AquaSeaFoam> he should know
[22:29] <AquaSeaFoam> i really have no idea what you're tlaking about on this
[22:29] <Ovenmitt> here you go
[22:29] <Ovenmitt> find a 400 acre noob
[22:29] <Ovenmitt> send 100k at him
[22:29] <Ovenmitt> raze
[22:29] <Ovenmitt> find another 400 acre nobo
[22:29] <Ovenmitt> send 200k at him
[22:30] <Ovenmitt> the % is the same
[22:30] <AquaSeaFoam> well obviously they need enough defense
[22:30] <AquaSeaFoam> i'm talking a bounce raze
[22:30] <Ovenmitt> -_-
[22:30] <Ovenmitt> im talking a break raze.
[22:30] <Ovenmitt> and land dmg
[22:30] <AquaSeaFoam> ok, on a break raze yes it's useless to send more off thant heir def
[22:30] <Ovenmitt> not casualties -_- o lawd
[22:30] <AquaSeaFoam> you instead do multiple razes
[22:30] <Ovenmitt> yes, casualties are proportionate to offense
[22:30] <AquaSeaFoam> not one with 4x the off
[22:30] <Ovenmitt> up to the break point
[22:31] <AquaSeaFoam> yes
[22:31] <Ovenmitt> but they're the same on both sides
[22:31] <Ovenmitt> (relatively)
[22:31] <AquaSeaFoam> break does slightly more
[22:31] <AquaSeaFoam> but close
[22:32] <Ovenmitt> you cant bounce down the other side's armies with razes
[22:32] <Ovenmitt> from a 4 person vantagepoint
[22:32] <Ovenmitt> you'd run out of army too fast
[22:32] <AquaSeaFoam> not all the armies right
[22:32] <Ovenmitt> irrelevant really
[22:32] <AquaSeaFoam> but if we took out your cows one at a time
[22:32] <Ovenmitt> then you'd be out of army by the second round of bounces from us
[22:32] <AquaSeaFoam> we'd doti a lot faster than you would ours due to our size adv on cows
[22:32] <Ovenmitt> y?
[22:32] <AquaSeaFoam> and our military adv
[22:32] <Ovenmitt> we only have 2 provinces to beat
[22:32] <Ovenmitt> 1 would be dead first wave
[22:32] <AquaSeaFoam> we'd ahev 20%+ more military
[22:33] <Ovenmitt> 1 would be dead secnod wave
[22:33] <Ovenmitt> then waht
[22:33] <AquaSeaFoam> we'd have marquis offense
[22:33] <Ovenmitt> just makes you easier to farm down tbh
[22:33] <Ovenmitt> because the overpop hits you harder once you're breakable
[22:33] <Ovenmitt> and you lose that honor
[22:34] <AquaSeaFoam> having more military is an adv even when overpop
[22:34] <Ovenmitt> tbh your big problem is
[22:34] <Ovenmitt> the halflings
[22:34] <Ovenmitt> because they're useless
[22:34] <Ovenmitt> useless race in a trade
[22:34] <AquaSeaFoam> well the mystic would keep ms on you
[22:34] <Ovenmitt> long atk times, low be, garbage army
[22:34] <Ovenmitt> yea, we just assumed ms on both sides
[22:35] <Ovenmitt> although we can mitigate ms for the most part
[22:35] <Ovenmitt> pretty easy
[22:35] <AquaSeaFoam> i think you underestimate halfling marquis
[22:35] <Ovenmitt> between MA and sabotage
[22:35] <AquaSeaFoam> they are pretty decent
[22:35] <Ovenmitt> MA bot is troll vs a single mystic
[22:35] <Ovenmitt> but thats neither here nor there
[22:35] <AquaSeaFoam> bot?
[22:36] <Ovenmitt> sure, you've never used an ma script?
[22:36] <AquaSeaFoam> nope
[22:36] <Ovenmitt> basically it autoscans news and applies ma on a spell fail
[22:36] <AquaSeaFoam> i guess if youw ere all runnign that it'd be prety hard on our mana
[22:37] <Ovenmitt> not sure how much success the ha mystic would be having
[22:37] <Ovenmitt> and at that point
[22:37] <Ovenmitt> you have a 16k province casting spells
[22:37] <AquaSeaFoam> anyway, maybe you could beat us, maybe we could beat you before. i thoguht we could win but an oow fight would jsut be bad for both
[22:37] <Ovenmitt> which is its own kind of pointless
[22:39] <Ovenmitt> i think we were pretty confident before your last farm war
[22:39] <Ovenmitt> then it was 50/50
[22:39] <Ovenmitt> 12k is a lot of acres to overcome
[22:39] <Ovenmitt> even on superior provinces
[22:40] <Ovenmitt> but fools gold is real
[22:40] <Ovenmitt> and so are bounces
[22:40] <Ovenmitt> so
[22:40] <Ovenmitt> it is what it is
[22:42] <AquaSeaFoam> yeah
[22:43] <AquaSeaFoam> we of course had people we planned to add if needed
[22:43] <Ovenmitt> little late for that now
[22:43] <AquaSeaFoam> i have a better way to do it if needed that wouldnt' be too late for[22:44] <AquaSeaFoam> but again, i don't want this to be a server war, would rather just make a deal like what mike proposed
[22:44] <Ovenmitt> we anxiously await your acres
[22:45] <AquaSeaFoam> mike proposed razing, not giving to you
[22:45] <Ovenmitt> the utopian lords anxiously await your acres
[22:45] <Ovenmitt> just think
[22:45] <AquaSeaFoam> ^^
[22:45] <Ovenmitt> if you all delete
[22:45] <Ovenmitt> there couldn't be a conflict
[22:45] <Ovenmitt> !
[22:47] <AquaSeaFoam> i think you could also look from our perspective though too. We were polite and friendly with you. we were verbally attacked by mike with false accusations, reported to admins (who found nothig wrong) attacked in the forums, irc, etc
[22:47] <AquaSeaFoam> when we did nothing to you
[22:47] <AquaSeaFoam> yet we still offered eoa cf when we felt we had the advantage
[22:47] <AquaSeaFoam> we were never being dicks to you guys
[22:47] <Ovenmitt> see
[22:47] <Ovenmitt> there you go with the we again
[22:48] <Ovenmitt> RoO isnt a we
[22:48] <Ovenmitt> mike does mike things
[22:48] <Ovenmitt> mango does mango things
[22:48] <Ovenmitt> i do my own things
[22:48] <AquaSeaFoam> yeah
[22:48] <Ovenmitt> mike runs his mouth a lot about xyz
[22:48] <Ovenmitt> i run my mouth about different things
[22:48] <AquaSeaFoam> ok, someone in your kd 9the ingame moanrch) visciously attacked us, slandered us etc
[22:48] <AquaSeaFoam> but yet we were still respectful and offered eoa cf
[22:48] <Ovenmitt> do you want me to change in game monarch so you feel better about the situation?
[22:48] <AquaSeaFoam> even when we thought we had the adv
[22:48] <Ovenmitt> i dont understand what you're getting at
[22:49] <Ovenmitt> being polite doesnt afford you anything
[22:49] <Ovenmitt> =/
[22:49] <Ovenmitt> let me politely ask binar for 10k acres
[22:49] <Ovenmitt> see how far that goes
[22:49] <AquaSeaFoam> i think being a bit respectful should afford you something
[22:49] <Ovenmitt> sure, you get entertained
[22:49] <Ovenmitt> responded to
[22:50] <Ovenmitt> i dont have any ill will towards you or you 5
[22:50] <Ovenmitt> i'm just coming to take your acres
[22:50] <AquaSeaFoam> well, again, when we thought we had the advantage, we were respectful and offered you eoa cf. when you think you have the advantages you act like assholes
[22:50] <AquaSeaFoam> why is that?
[22:50] <Ovenmitt> have i acted like an asshole?
[22:50] <AquaSeaFoam> some, yeah
[22:50] <Ovenmitt> huh, interesting
[22:50] <AquaSeaFoam> demanding we all delete for a deal, etc
[22:50] <AquaSeaFoam> that's pretty assholish
[22:51] <Ovenmitt> ah, but was that not in response for you demanding a deal where I got nothing?[22:51] <AquaSeaFoam> you don't think so?
[22:51] <AquaSeaFoam> no, it was me asking if the deal mike proposed was real
[22:51] <AquaSeaFoam> mike proposed that deal
[22:51] <Ovenmitt> and what did i say
[22:51] <Ovenmitt> ask
[22:51] <Ovenmitt> mike
[22:51] <AquaSeaFoam> that you're not mike
[22:51] <Ovenmitt> correct
[22:51] <Ovenmitt> so i said i'd make you a better deal
[22:51] <Ovenmitt> and i did
[22:51] <AquaSeaFoam> but does mike decide what deal is valid for your whole kingdom without yoru input?
[22:52] <Ovenmitt> not unless he wants to be intra'd
[22:52] <AquaSeaFoam> but yours wasn't better for us, was it?
[22:52] <AquaSeaFoam> it was jsut being an asss =]
[22:52] <Ovenmitt> better, like many things, is relative
[22:52] <Ovenmitt> it avoids all conflict
[22:52] <Ovenmitt> because it removes all potential for any
[22:52] <AquaSeaFoam> so would an eoa cf
[22:52] <Ovenmitt> but an eoa cf means i cant have your acres
[22:52] <AquaSeaFoam> and like i said i'm willign to make concessions to avoid things blowing up
[22:52] <Ovenmitt> which i'm going to get
[22:52] <Ovenmitt> so thats a big - for me
[22:53] <Ovenmitt> and all these talented farmers and whorers
[22:53] <Ovenmitt> that have grown so much
[22:53] <Ovenmitt> over the past week
[22:53] <AquaSeaFoam> you realize we were the top 4 provs oop and most of the time sinc then and that wasn't due to farming, right?
[22:54] <Ovenmitt> sure, it was due to you being avian and getting 4800 elite credits while us dwarves had to explore through the retard fest that was oop
[22:54] <Ovenmitt> not because we were outplayed.
[22:54] <AquaSeaFoam> ok
[22:55] <AquaSeaFoam> well considering you added a full kd of players and farmed massive amounts from bart, I agree, you outplayed us
[22:56] <Ovenmitt> 400 opa ud/ war heros are interesting
[22:56] <AquaSeaFoam> (at leat to this point and i'm willing to conceed now before going to the next point)
[22:56] <AquaSeaFoam> yeah

[Ovenmitt]

The above post was before Mike decided to allow ASF to keep his acres in return for nothing. But yeah, lol @ diplo with ASF. What a joke.

[Palem]

So what you're saying is, despite having a better kingdom set up, a better strategy, better diplo and just about every advantage imaginable, ASF still outplayed you and got exactly what he wanted? With a kicker of you admitting that your kingdom cheats.

A good joke indeed.

[Ovenmitt]

So what you're saying is, despite having a better kingdom set up, a better strategy, better diplo and just about every advantage imaginable, ASF still outplayed you and got exactly what he wanted? With a kicker of you admitting that your kingdom cheats.

A good joke indeed.

Do you understand why everyone was upset with Mike and why he said he messed up now? It wasn't a kingdom decision. It was a Mike decision.

[Korp]

Do you understand why everyone was upset with Mike and why he said he messed up now? It wasn't a kingdom decision. It was a Mike decision.

Everyone being basically ovenmitt.

[DonJuan]

lol im so glad i finally open this thread just now. looks like it just got good

skipped like 7 pages is lulzzZzz

[Exxo]

Alright, here it is. I'm not licensed to practice in the World of Utopia, but what the hey. Let me know where to send my invoice.
<cut>

*stands up and applauds*
Very insightful reading.