#1 go Timber???

[flogger]

Hopefully this will be my only post on all the stupid bull****, and the rest can be talking about fun things, like who's doing what to whom where.

1) Flogger, you would be a lot more credible when you're re-stating history if you at least use facts. For example, during your whole long story of the situation two ages ago, this very first fact was wrong: when you made two bank hits after munk's prov was hacked, we were up one bank hit not two, because my prov was turtled at the time and was going to hit after your banks and beat them home. Your post goes on and on stressing about how we were up two bank hits. This is factually incorrect.

2) Topsy and I aren't doing any of the negotiation WRT you. I'm not involved in the deal-decision process with BB. I'm sure we are unreasonable, but Maxi isn't particularly unreasonable.

3) We are not responsible for the multis. Claiming or hinting that we are is ridiculous. The situation is nothing like when prot's IP accessed munk's computer, and you yourself said that you believed prot was responsible for it, using that evidence combined with your own logs of your council channel based on what prot said, when he went afk, and how he suddenly came back to talk about war after Munk's prov had been suicided. I believe your logs of your council channel had him coming back from being AFK to post the som, being the first person in the kingdom who noticed it?

Somehow that still turned into a conspiracy theory where we were responsible for it, though. It's pretty cute.

4) Ervgotti's faery was never going to be unbreakable by the third wave. Not only was our undead able to hit him prior to the bouncewave, but also our undead was out training him and Ervgotti had all of .7 TPA with no WTs so we could easily reduce his defense into range.

5) Considering the way you have acted towards us in the past, including:
A) Minor dealbreaks -- call them what you will, but they were -- with no apology or care.
B) 'It's not about the deal, it's about the spirit of the deal'.
C) 'When I defined this term for you in our negotiations, what I told you is not what it actually means. I meant something other than what I said, so that's what we're using instead.'
D) Forcing a deal on us requiring us to drop out of the t10 (you say you didn't suggest it, but the only alternatives you would allow, after taking 3 extra cow hits++, were for us to reset all provs or quit)
E) Saying you would CF until around yr9 last age and then the next day deciding that whoops, no, you wouldn't. Messaging us 'within 24 hours', which happens to mean PMing me on IRC while I was asleep and was 2+ hours idle and wouldn't see it for ~8 more hours.
...and so forth
I don't feel any particular sympathy for your situation with the multi. If you were literally any other kd, we would CF you because of it, but you've gone out of your way to be dicks to us while pretending to be reasonable for the last two ages.

Say all you want that you find the offer we've given you unreasonable; that won't make it unreasonable considering the circumstances.

1) Ok, could likely be true since you were stuck at the meter cap. Doesn't change the content of my post, and more particularly the point that there was no reason to be mad over the bank hit, because we were making those 2 bank hits anyways whether the faery incident happened or not, because you used your meter on bounces.

2) The offer was we couldn't have a province grow over 3k acres by year 6. It is in fact, the most unreasonable offer I've ever heard, I'm sure everyone not in havoc would agree to that.

3) Where is the claim of us saying you were behind the multis, I said it was avalanche. Do I think he might have messaged someone in your kingdom? Sure, he messaged mine. Every kingdom, yours included has 10 new players in it this age. No monarch knows everything these days. Do I think you or godly or megas or zara or devolution or topsy had any knowledge? No. Can't say the same for the rest of the 20 people, however. You waved us on the 8th. The multis were created 12 hours prior. Whoever made them knew you were planning on waving us. That combined with generally when everyone has the exact same story right in place, and people say "oh, I bet they hit us next" then go ahead and do so immediately afterwards, I simply said that it is suspicious, which, it is.

4) What is easier to nightstrike, a faery with elite defense or an undead with ospec offense? Regardless going from 1 province who can break to 6 is fairly significant. The upsetting thing would be hitting it right away without even caring or attempting to let him get his defense back, it could have easily been fixed. I had my entire kingdom ceasefire you after prepping for it for 6 weeks. You could have waited 2 hours, or at least brought up the subject of trying to make it equitable.

5) How about the solution of "wait for his armies to get home and keep going" or "we can CF a bit and go again" Your answers were "we don't feel like fighting this fight anymore, lets just CF until the end of age" Clearly that can't be the answer, as then anyone can just suicide a province and get an EoA CF with their largest threat on the server. Oh, and regarding E) I have it on authority you have done the same thing to multiple kingdoms in the past. People change their minds. Demanding an answer on a Ceasefire an hour after a 5 day fight on little sleep is certainly more ridiculous than changing your mind after someone wakes up. Furthermore, anyone reasonable would say "hey, this guy didn't sleep for 3 days, maybe when he woke up he might change his mind, and you know, it really wouldn't be unreasonable if he did"