NAM Declares on NBD - Nugget Putin > King of the North Sage

[DeletedUser93681]

Nam nor Golden should be accused of anything with the iamtell fipflop players. As far as I am concern that account should have stayed loyal to w2v and fought along with charshaun and others.

 

[THE MURPH ALL CAPS]

This post is mainly targeted @eddie and @andrew

"Great point Eddie" made me laugh

But I guess these three joined in on the bandwagon as well

Sinful
Dallow
Brick

You guys all went in hard to certain degrees on bashing NAM in this thread re iamtell. Like I said, you shouldn't be blaming NAM/Golden. For the most part it's the account that's at fault. That's the harsh reality.

@Deb, lots of W2V chose one side or the other. It's unfair to call out just that one account.

 

[DeletedUser93681]

@Deb, lots of W2V chose one side or the other. It's unfair to call out just that one account.

But the iamtell account chose both sides

 

[DeletedUser92289]

Thing is - I get your point on accounts email owners etc Mr Murph - However in this instance it would appear that there was no communication between the two co-players.

Besides if I logged into my account (being the email owner) and saw that my co had decided on his own to gift the sit without prior discussion he'd be gone.

 

[Sinful Angel]

For example, either player on the account could ha e sent all troops on a journey of 100 hours +. They are perfectly entitled to do so and there's nothing you can do about it. That's the nature of co-playing and I hope you all come to learn that. I like to align my visions and direction with my co-players, treat them as equals and hope we enjoy playing the game together.

What you're saying is the co-player should lose every privlage just because he doesn't have the email? What's disgusting is your attitude.

When you sign on as a coplayer you know what you're getting into. The player owning the account ALWAYS has the final say and though most co play teams will come to a decision together ultimately the unspoken truth is that the email holder does own the account and can decide to do as they will. As a co player you submit to being subject to the main player if they so will.

It completely attacks NAM and it shouldn't. The issue is with the account and the account alone. NAM shouldn't be brought into this.

NAM brought themselves into this when they had a co player log on the account and give them the sit against the main players wishes.

 

[DeletedUser]

NAM brought themselves into this when they had a co player log on the account and give them the sit against the main players wishes.

And your proof that NAM went and asked this of the co player is where???

 

[DeletedUser]

There isn't any proof; only speculation and assumption.

Certainly, the co-player could have decided out of the blue to stop Golden's sit and give the sit to NAM without any amount of coercion or suggestion. It just seems less likely than the alternative.

In regards to the rights of co-players, it pains me to say it, but I mostly agree with Al. I believe even Inno has said that giving out your password to another player gives them equal rights to the account. I'm as conservative a player as you can possibly find on this game, and I've always been extremely hesitant about giving my password out and taking a co on. I know if I were ready to quit, my account would be internalled before I'd gift the account to someone to take over.

 

[Brick Tamland]

I've never experienced an issue like this with a co player, but once a co player has joined dont they have equal power once they know the pass? So both players have control meaning that NAM have done nothing wrong or illegal? Because one of the players on the account set them as sitters.

Not sure if the fact that they arent the original account owners makes a difference, but in my eyes it doesnt, as they are still a player on the account.

 

[DeletedUser]

I suppose it's etiquette more than anything, that keeps that little bit of inequality between account owners and co-players. With my usual co, I've always felt like we are owners in joint, and have the same interests, so it's never been an issue. If your co-player has different loyalties than what you have, there could certainly be an issue.

It's not uncommon, sadly, for people to get on an account and then act in an unethical manner, like jumping on a duke account and then disbanding the tribe. With so many examples of co-players doing shady things, it's easier to think the worst about a situation than consider the best.

 

[DeletedUser]

@Al I barely bashed Nam for what they may or may not have done. Do I think there was a nammer in the co's ear, yes definitely. The co did things such as leave the pp there (was about 8k according to tell) that your average disgruntled co wouldn't have left. However, one that wasn't disgruntled but instead under orders would have. Can I prove it, no I don't have access to either sides Skype accounts so unless either send them to me then I won't have proof. Do I need proof to have an opinion, no. Do I need proof to bash another tribe, no, nammers have been doing all world without any proof.

My one remark was that I hope Chris wasn't involved which remains true, as has been said anything they did or not do is completely legal and a lot of players would drive for it to happen but it's always a bit shadier if a dukes involved which I didn't want for Chris.

 

[arabela]

When you sign on as a coplayer you know what you're getting into. The player owning the account ALWAYS has the final say and though most co play teams will come to a decision together ultimately the unspoken truth is that the email holder does own the account and can decide to do as they will. As a co player you submit to being subject to the main player if they so will.




NAM brought themselves into this when they had a co player log on the account and give them the sit against the main players wishes.

When you sign on as a coplayer you know what you're getting into.

"Sign on as coplayer"? this amused me ..

The player owning the account ALWAYS has the final say and though most co play teams will come to a decision together ultimately the unspoken truth is that the email holder does own the account and can decide to do as they will.

No. Co-players must decide together, they are a team. (I am glad i didn't co the players you did, or yourself, we wouldn't get along well if you think this way...)

As a co player you submit to being subject to the main player if they so will.

this kinda...sounds...hot (mm) (but i still wouldn't "obey" lol )

In my humble opinion, in all cases of co-playing (new or old account), the players must "function" like a team and decide together in all aspects. It doesn't even matter if someone bring more or less pp or has the email in settings. If is not like this, than is not co-playing ...call it "helping a friend in another world when u are bored". In this case, yes...u are "submissive" lol...u don't even care what he is doing or w/e. But this is not co-playing...

I joined some accounts and ended up playing them till end even original owner quitted when we got op-ed. What should have I done if he quitted? Quit too? no way, thx...

 

[DeletedUser]

#notallcoplayers have that type of team mentality. Some even refer to themselves as "farm slaves" or "night sitters". I definitely agree that the co-player relationships where they work as equals are stronger and more effective, but some people don't want that when they take a co on.

I even remember once in W66 a player asked if I'd sit them while they were asleep to send an attack. I asked why their co didn't just do it. The reply was that he didn't trust his co to do it right.

 

[arabela]

Lmao...this is funny ))

 

[THE MURPH ALL CAPS]

What's wrong with that? I've had plenty of garbage co-players that I don't trust to send attacks but sure they learnt eventually. No issues with that.

 

[arabela]

I wouldnt ask someone to sit the account i play if i would have a co who can actually play and do the task, even if he screw it or not. Setting someone else as sitter just cause my co sucks is not smth i would do, tbh. I dont like to burn others with my account. nothing is wrong, probably just diffrent ways to play.

I set sitters only in critical situations when nobody can cover and someone has to deal account otherwise smth bad will happend. (Like when i am Op-ed ). I just try to be online as much as possible...

 

[DeletedUser]

What's wrong with that? I've had plenty of garbage co-players that I don't trust to send attacks but sure they learnt eventually. No issues with that.

Don't you ask your potential co if they have any actual skills before you actually let them on your account? I mean, if they aren't even capable of sending a train, doesn't seem like good co material. ymmv.

 

[DeletedUser]

We still having a bitch fest cuz of two little retarded cowards on an account? hahahaha

 

[Brick Tamland]

I like Kurtis, he doesnt hold back, be like Kurtis

 

[THE MURPH ALL CAPS]

Don't you ask your potential co if they have any actual skills before you actually let them on your account? I mean, if they aren't even capable of sending a train, doesn't seem like good co material. ymmv.

I'm willing to teach. I have no problem with having new players on my account if they are willing to learn. But sometimes I'll give a reliable friend the task until such trust is built up. Sometimes I don't. Depends on the situation really but it's no biggie.

 

[Apathetic h0llygh0st]

Chanakya wrote:
"A man is great by deeds, not by birth."

Going back to the topic. NBD is gaining points again, rather than losing.