Let's Have a Vote

[Nauzhror]

@Nauzhror
How come you have christmas tree?

That was December 18th, they were part of the village for Christmas.

 

[DeletedUser]

Just a re-cap for people who haven't voted yet, this is a debate about if Asher Roth had 3500 axe at 3,000 points. Nothing more nothing less.

Pssst, Asher, you should quit arguing now, if you haven't noticed, so far it's everyone vs you.

 

[DeletedUser]

Well, I am going to stay nuetral in this because you are both good players.

 

[DeletedUser]

Well, I am going to stay nuetral in this because you are both good players.

It's not a vote about who's a better player, it's a vote about whether or not Asher Roth was lieing about having 3500 axe when he was 3000 points. I've provided countless stats and facts to prove him to be a liar.

 

[Nauzhror]

It's not a vote about who's a better player, it's a vote about whether or not Asher Roth was lieing about having 3500 axe when he was 3000 points. I've provided countless stats and facts to prove him to be a liar.

You've shown theories. Unless you sat me you can't prove anything.

 

[Nauzhror]

Just a re-cap for people who haven't voted yet, this is a debate about if Asher Roth had 3500 axe at 3,000 points. Nothing more nothing less.

Pssst, Asher, you should quit arguing now, if you haven't noticed, so far it's everyone vs you.

That's why I have more votes than you, surely.

 

[Super fast]

Nauzhror you won. ( period )

 

[Nauzhror]

Nauzhror you won. ( period )

That's because you were actually in the tribe with Asher and know the troop count was accurate.

 

[DeletedUser]

Ya, right. I'm gonna get shards to check to see if random alias's have been voting.

 

[Nauzhror]

Ya, right. I'm gonna get shards to check to see if random alias's have been voting.

Go for it. She won't tell you one way or the other, but it's not. Though you do look very petty to even try to bring a moderator into the equation when you lose. We know you'd flame me if I bitched when I was losing and asked for mod intervention.

 

[DeletedUser]

Go for it. She won't tell you one way or the other, but it's not. Though you do look very petty to even try to bring a moderator into the equation when you lose. We know you'd flame me if I bitched when I was losing and asked for mod intervention.

I'm not asking for mod intervention. I am asking for mod clarification.

And if I wanted to get a mod involved, I would've complained about the dozen cuss words you've spout out at me... But hey look at that... I haven't reported you once. :icon_idea:

Now speaking of petty, isn't it pretty petty of you to have to create a poll to see who won? :icon_redface:

 

[Nauzhror]

I'm not asking for mod intervention. I am asking for mod clarification.

And if I wanted to get a mod involved, I would've complained about the dozen cuss words you've spout out at me... But hey look at that... I haven't reported you once. :icon_idea:

Now speaking of petty, isn't it pretty petty of you to have to create a poll to see who won? :icon_redface:

Shards made the poll, not me. I didn't even ask her to.

 

[DeletedUser]

Shards made the poll, not me. I didn't even ask her to.

You still created the thread: "Lets have a vote" and proceeded with this:

I'm curious, Snectarc sent me a PM that I should tuck my tail between my legs and never post on the forums again because he feels he supposedly 'ruined my reputation' in the following thread: http://forum.tribalwars.net/showthread.php?t=135620&page=4

Anyone who feels I should be ashamed post here and say so.

Anyone who feels this newb should shut up before he gets laughed off the forums, also post and say so. I'm curious which sides gets more votes :icon_wink:

Whether shards made the poll or not, you still created a thread to vote to see who won the arguement. :icon_idea:

 

[Nauzhror]

You still created the thread: "Lets have a vote" and proceeded with this:



Whether shards made the poll or not, you still created a thread to vote to see who won the arguement. :icon_idea:

Yes to shut you up after you began harassing me via PM's telling me to never post again.

 

[Shlomzi]

I decided to have a look through the argument. I got bored. So I went and asked Nauzhror what it was about. Apparently it started as he claimed he had 3,400 axes, 1,500 light cavalry at 3,000 points.

Now, we know Nauzhror also plays World 37. He is currently 3,500 points there. I asked him to screenshot his troop counts there:

150 less axes, 100 more light cavalry.

I think therefore, it is safe to say that it is at least plausible for him to have that amount of troops.

If you then take into account the fact that he has an academy on World 37, and that he didn't on World 36 - you'll notice that if you take away the 500 points for academy he'd be down to 3,000 points on World 37 also - with the troops he said he had.

The situations seem extremely similar. He had the same points, roughly the same troops (less axes, but more light cavalry), and in fact he was on the rim on World 36 where it is far less competitive to make it easier for him.

So yes, I believe he was telling the truth.

 

[DeletedUser]

Yes to shut you up after you began harassing me via PM's telling me to never post again.

Really? I thought it was because of this:

Edited my post while you were writing yours. also no one is laughing at me, you're just too stupid to notice. We can have a vote though if you like as to who more people find to be in the right.

Damn bro, no matter what you say, I'm always ready with a counter. It's just a shame so many people are so far up your bum they can't see this. :icon_neutral: That, or I think foul play is about, which I find much more likely.

 

[DeletedUser]

I decided to have a look through the argument. I got bored. So I went and asked Nauzhror what it was about. Apparently it started as he claimed he had 3,400 axes, 1,500 light cavalry at 3,000 points.

Now, we know Nauzhror also plays World 37. He is currently 3,500 points there. I asked him to screenshot his troop counts there:

150 less axes, 100 more light cavalry.

I think therefore, it is safe to say that it is at least plausible for him to have that amount of troops.

If you then take into account the fact that he has an academy on World 37, and that he didn't on World 36 - you'll notice that if you take away the 500 points for academy he'd be down to 3,000 points on World 37 also - with the troops he said he had.

The situations seem extremely similar. He had the same points, roughly the same troops (less axes, but more light cavalry), and in fact he was on the rim on World 36 where it is far less competitive to make it easier for him.

So yes, I believe he was telling the truth.

Cannot deny that,.

 

[Nauzhror]

Really? I thought it was because of this:



Damn bro, no matter what you say, I'm always ready with a counter. It's just a shame so many people are so far up your bum they can't see this. :icon_neutral: That, or I think foul play is about, which I find much more likely.

I think it's far more likely you just refuse to admit you may be wrong when you absolutely are. Most of the people that voted for me have seen me play and know my skill level and as such nothing that you post will change that they know my claim was not unheard of from me.

 

[DeletedUser]

I decided to have a look through the argument. I got bored. So I went and asked Nauzhror what it was about. Apparently it started as he claimed he had 3,400 axes, 1,500 light cavalry at 3,000 points.

Now, we know Nauzhror also plays World 37. He is currently 3,500 points there. I asked him to screenshot his troop counts there:

150 less axes, 100 more light cavalry.

I think therefore, it is safe to say that it is at least plausible for him to have that amount of troops.

If you then take into account the fact that he has an academy on World 37, and that he didn't on World 36 - you'll notice that if you take away the 500 points for academy he'd be down to 3,000 points on World 37 also - with the troops he said he had.

The situations seem extremely similar. He had the same points, roughly the same troops (less axes, but more light cavalry), and in fact he was on the rim on World 36 where it is far less competitive to make it easier for him.

So yes, I believe he was telling the truth.

Except for the fact that he inherited that account from Purple Predator. :icon_rolleyes:

Also, lets not mix worlds here. Look at my stats that I brought up, look at the defenses he brought up.

Nothing indicates he is telling the truth here, except that on w37 he inherited an account from one of the top players in .net. And thus, since he has played that account from day 1 icon_rolleyes it accurately gives a description of his skill.

Riiiiight. I never had much respect for you shlomzi, but with this post, it just dropped to absolute zero.

 

[DeletedUser]

I think it's far more likely you just refuse to admit you may be wrong when you absolutely are. Most of the people that voted for me have seen me play and know my skill level and as such nothing that you post will change that they know my claim was not unheard of from me.

Thats it right there, you claim this and you claim that. But when evidence is brought up you look the other way and say "well other people know this and know that."