My understanding of the order of events:Originally Posted by Anri
1: Sanc sends dragon
2: Sanc makes bank hit
3: Sanc sends Anri/Simians message saying "We will wave when you drop fort"
4: Simians drops fort and makes 7 hits against hoh
5: Sanc's 2nd hit comes in (prior to button being given to hoh)
6: Sanc continues waving and at some point after Sanc's 2nd hit, Simians gives the button to HoH
7: Sanc finishes their wave against Simians, at this point HoH has not retaliated (and so by some definitions, including the one Prot used against me some ages ago, it wasn't a real hostile yet.)
8: HoH presses button and war commences
9: Simians decides to roll over and farm out to spite Sanc (and also harms Rage as collateral damage)
Is this accurate for order of events? Personally, I view a hostile as being opened when one side has clearly committed to the fight and clearly communicated to the other side that they are committed. The other party at that point has three choices generally: try to do some diplomacy to avoid the fight, engage in the fight, or eat the wave for a CF. This situation was simply compounded because you chose a 4th option which was to open a second hostile with a third party after you knew for sure that Sanc was opening a hostile with you. You can argue semantics all day long, but Sanc clearly demonstrated hostile intent by word and by deed. Saying they didn't hostile you because you didn't have a button yet is just trying to 'lawyer' what a hostile is, and I think all of us can agree that everyone has had enough of the whole "lawyer" thing with hostiles. Common sense should suffice to demonstrate when a kd is hostile to you, and Sanc had clearly demonstrated hostility.
That said, the only rules we have in this game concerning hostiles and fighting 1v1 are what we all agree upon. It is your right to say that you did not consider Sanc to have demonstrated hostility toward you. Just the same, they did tell you what they were going to do and you did choose to try and open a different hostile up to avoid that. All of that is really kind of down to viewpoint and really nobody can make a final "call" on it. Most of the forum community seems to think that Sanc had clearly shown hostile intent and that you were trying to run from them, and you have admitted that you intentionally farmed out to hoh to spite abs. That's all your choice, and really I have no comment other than to thank you for being honest about what you did, and to express my regret that you did so. A hard fought war would have been more entertaining and would have given HoH a chance at what they want most, which is respect. People often call them farms and say they hide behind abs, and they would have liked a real fight that was hard fought so if they won and won the age, they would earn respect. Now everyone will just go to your post where you said you farmed out on purpose and hoh will not get the respect they were after.
The only other comment I have, Anri, is just a bit of advice from one old friend to another. Don't speculate on what "would" have happened. None of us can know what would have happened if different moves had been made and things had played out differently. I suggested earlier that you could have sent notice to hoh and not to Sanc and Rage to buy yourself at least an hour if not many hours to initiate hostility with hoh before either Sanc or Rage could step in. If you had noticed hoh first and waited to see if sanc or rage noticed, you would have had time to set up the long hostile you wanted. It's even possible that neither sanc or rage would have even given you notice at all. We just can't know, because you gave notice to everyone at the same time. Speculation serves no purpose. You speculate that Sanctuary would have hit you no matter what, and you are therefore angry with them ... but what if you had given notice to only hoh and Sanc had not given you notice and you ended up with a 1v1 fight with hoh? That's just as much a possibility as what you claim "would have happened".
It's not worth being angry about something that "would have happened" because we simply can't know how things would have gone differently. I'm sad to see a fun age end this way, and would have enjoyed a hard fought war from both sides a whole lot more than what happened instead.
When I was 11, I was crossing the street after getting off a bus on the way to school and was hit by a car. As a result I've been confined to a wheelchair for the decades since. If only I had waved the bus to go before I walked across the street, or if only the person who hit me had been a minute earlier leaving for work that day, I could have lived my life without being crippled. Of course, maybe I would have ended up in the US Military and gotten killed in Iraq or Afghanistan and wouldn't even be alive right now. I simply cannot know how my life would have gone if events were different by a few seconds and I hadn't been crippled for life. But it is folly for me to think that things would automatically be better. For all I know, I would have died a week later if I hadn't been in a hospital bed recovering from my brush with death. Or maybe I would be perfectly fine and still alive and in perfect health. I don't know what might have been, but I know what is. I'm alive and that is better than not, so I've learned not to dwell too much upon "what if". Have fun on your vacation and don't let the "what if"s bother you Anri. It's a game, and games are supposed to be fun. Have a great visit with your family and see you next age mate.
Reply With Quote