FS vs ED: FS brings in out of hostile help?

In reading a new set of logs I've seen (full disclosure I likely didn't see them at the time because a member of my kingdom sent a picture on whatsapp of 5 naked men having sex simultaneously around that time so when scrolling back I recall stopping) someone say something I wouldn't have said that I don't really agree with, I'm the leader and when I got on I asked what was needed to fix it and it got fixed within the day?

No where in these logs is me saying anything nor prot saying anything (the 2 known leaders of our kingdom) unlike the suggestion coming from dorje and being egged on by leshrak, your 2 main leaders.

The ask of RK'ing bourreau was not unreasonable, given we could have done it in 12 hours, so all we were asking for was to spared 12 hours of stalling and ya said no.

I'm quite irritated with your use of "ya"

It doesn't make any of your sentences read nicely. You can say "y'all" or "you"

Why did someone say Nesta said he had BB's permission? Who lied this time!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jwuzi

I'm quite irritated with your use of "ya"

It doesn't make any of your sentences read nicely. You can say "y'all" or "you"

Why did someone say Nesta said he had BB's permission? Who lied this time!!

---

I'm aware who you're talking about so I have no idea

So you now admit that BB encouraged Pyro to help FS 2v1 ED? Glad you've stopped denying it now once you found out that the logs were out.

Your demands to resolve the situation with Bour were for Bour's full kingdom and Emeriti's full kingdom to both raze down to BB set small size caps and neither compete. If you just wanted to solve things fast with Bour without BB losing any time or having to draft, you could have just took his offer he made right from the start for giving you all land back plus interest. This wasn't what you wanted obviously and you've admitted that since.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AquaSeaFoam

So you now admit that BB encouraged Pyro to help FS 2v1 ED? Glad you've stopped denying it now once you found out that the logs were out.

.

---

I didn't find out logs were out, I just emailed the group chan to myself and read them. The logs that someone told me are out didn't seem to address any of this. One guy who isn't a main leader said something the main leader disagrees with and the situation got resolved within a day. Those same logs ask "what did ASF say the definition of hostile was" and someone else said "CF and no hits for 12 hours"

Sorry I wasn't around to say your take was lame?

Now a BB council member who is the BB leader actively researching and talking to everyone about the issue is being discredited as irrelevant because they are not a "main leader" even though they were the main leader on this issue until you and protector needed to try and do the clean up. Funny how you've now repeated everything you deal broke and gb'd Emeriti for.

As I already posted in response to you claiming that a couple pages ago,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AquaSeaFoam

This was an old tactic of the Covenant alliance. Eventually there was an alliance meeting with Covenant, Abs, and other alliances around at the time and there was a definition of "hostile" formed. Absalom was generally against a specific definition sine once it was defined then people would look to abuse the loopholes with it. In the end, we did agree on the definition which included that if a kingdom had offered ingame cf and had not hit for at least 12h then a third party kingdom could consider the hostile over for the aggressor kingdom. After it was defined, it was a regular tactic to abuse this definition. The one time dorje used it was after AMA had been noticed by havoc and then decided to b2b Sanc to try and dodge havoc despite Sanc being well below war range. Elit stated he would never cf sanc all age unless he got a long cf with Havoc and Havoc didn't want to give him more than an extra week or something.

---

So no one has used the tactic for 6 years to resolve a conflict except twice. Once in which you doubled elit and he got farmed and you got what you wanted, and second right now where the kd that got hit got everything they wanted and look to be the favorites to crown.

That about sum it up?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by flogger

So no one has used the tactic for 6 years to resolve a conflict except twice. Once in which you doubled elit and he got farmed and you got what you wanted, and second right now where the kd that got hit got everything they wanted and look to be the favorites to crown.

That about sum it up?

---

So you're now defending double hostiles? Le wow...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Felonious

So you're now defending double hostiles? Le wow...

---

If finding out about said double hostile, asking what they would want to resolve it and agreeing to it within a day is your definition of defending you must just be a frustrated flamingo. Defending it would be not seeking a solution and imposing our will.

In Elit's case, Havoc had noticed him and told him they'd be waving no matter what as soon as their notice was up and warned Elit to not try to run. After Elit waved Sanc instead (who was below declare range), Havoc didn't quite follow through on their warning. Instead they offered Elit to give him an extension of several extra days to prepare and to cf Sanc up the land on them from their wave. Elit refused to cf even with the free land from sanc and the extension from Havoc and said he would not cf Sanc the rest of the age unless he got at least a 2 week cf from Havoc. Havoc then made their decision that they were going to wave Elit and not let him run fromt heir notice by waving a kd below declare range. They let dorje know as a courtesy and dorje stopped his retals and offered ingame cf to Elit as a courtesy.

Your past example was a kingdom that had noticed Elit waving him anyway after Elit had tried to run by waving a kd below declare range and demanded a 2 week cf with the kd who had noticed him and they ended up waving anyway. This age, ED was in a 1v1 hostile with FS. Pyro waved in to help FS 2v1 ED, not because anyone was running from a notice.

Despite the differences in the situations, we have now come full circle as now it is you trying to bring up stuff from 3 years ago.

Flogger you are just trying to spin things saying leader, main leader, your mom's leader, my father's leader and what not! The thing is someone from your leadership suggested to double hostile ED.

It doesn't matter if he is the main leader or not. He would have had some influence that nesta agreed to it and did go ahead and double hostile ED.

For your sake lets take it that he is not main leader(as per what you say) and nesta took that decision on his own. Still he went ahead and double hostiled ED! What action is taken on them?

Again last age ED took a beating from FS(may whatever the reason be) for 2 weeks. that time you did not go and stop FS or did a diplomacy on their behalf that they stop hitting ED. Then why is it right now since your ally is getting beaten down, that you have to interfere 1) with a double hostile 2) after the double hostile BB covers it up for FS & Pyro!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by flogger

If finding out about said double hostile, asking what they would want to resolve it and agreeing to it within a day is your definition of defending you must just be a frustrated flamingo. Defending it would be not seeking a solution and imposing our will.

---

Now compare your demands and compare Parth's demands!
Your's was just a 380-500 acred hit whereas Pyro's was a full wave of maybe 3-4k acres!

And how do you serve justice?

Stop being two faced flogger!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by flogger

If finding out about said double hostile, asking what they would want to resolve it and agreeing to it within a day is your definition of defending you must just be a frustrated flamingo.

---

Watching all the ****play that has oozed from the Feyr Play kds since they gangbanged us has been pretty frustratin. You got me pegged. :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by flogger

Defending it would be not seeking a solution and imposing our will.

---

FS got the ceasefire they wanted through a double hostile organized and executed by the Feyr Play Alliance. I suppose thats a solution of sorts. But to say its not "imposing your will" is just retarded, lol.

Who cares about all this nonsense. I think this is just flirting between my flogger and that ASF lady

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by flogger

I'm aware who you're talking about so I have no idea

---

You ignored the main part of my post.

I shall call you out next time you make my forum reading experience inconvenient