I apologize if I sound rude, but you made us sound like some kind of opportunist tribe that easily backstab diplomacy agreements when in fact most of us are very loyal even with personal agreements with smaller players. I have never broken any agreements I made with any1 in any world, even with bashers regardless of how useful they are to me I will defend them to the end (unless they noble barbs without my permission).
While my first comment about Matt could be taken as a negative one... That was not the intention. It's a question that has been asked not just here on the forums, several times, but outside as well. I've never seen a satisfactory answer, such as "I will quit at this time" or "I promise to stay until this date" rather, what has been said is very vague.
I just wanted to know, does he plan to stay or does he plan to go? And if he stays will there be trouble? And if he goes.....
As for all other statements, they were truly neutral. I can see how you make have interpreted them the way you did, as this is the externals and usually people are flaming, but I truly do hating flaming, that's why I have 80 or so posts since 2007.
Your tribe, I stated, has a spread, has good early-mid game players, and was unsure about late game players. Which you have just confirmed, and said that most of you wouldn't stay late game.
I stated that you had many allies/nap's, I did not refer to which one you had many of, rather, a combination of the two. And since the definition of many is different for everyone, I guess there's no real way to determine whether the common person would consider your list of allies and nap's to be a lot without revealing the amount that you have...
As for the RAGE NAP, I merely stated that you dropped the NAP. I guess we have different views on what dropping an NAP means. I'm sorry about that. I guess my terminology is not the same as yours. But as I see it, if you officially tell the other tribe you are removing the NAP, or rather, start attacks before they start attacks, whether they planned to attack you and removed you as an NAP internally, or not, you officially dropped the NAP, and what they did was deceitful and could be considered wrong, but in the end you were the ones to make sure both tribes knew the NAP was over.
There was no statement that you did not honor agreements. Rather. I stated that an NAP is not an agreement beyond what it says it is. Non-aggression pact that can be ended at any time. Which was ended, whether you want to argue that they did or you did it. I did not call you back-stabbers, your came to that conclusion on your own.
If any of this is negative, besides my accusation to Matt after the original post about breaking agreements in the past which I have withdrawn for the time being, then please point it out so that I can make ammends.
