Account of the war

[DeletedUser78416]

MichielK, brother...you just got pwned! :icon_razz:

Calling names and pointing fingers is one thing, but actually finding out details of a situation before pointing fingers and calling names is quite the contrary.

You see a black man walk up to an elderly white woman in the middle of the street and knock her out with a left hook. Without knowing the details of why this happened, you assume this 'black man' was being racist in some fashion and picking on the elderly...the white elderly at that. Names get called, police action is demanded, the whole nine yards.

When in reality, he saw her pulling a gun out of her purse and was aiming it at another person on the streets and intervened to save this other persons life.

You failed to see her pull out her gun, so you assumed it was just another crime perpetrated by just another racist black man.

(The above situation is fictitious and was only used as an analogy to derive a point)

In my situation, I had to take small barbs and internals because once you guys attacked, I sent everything I had up front. I literally had nothing left to even think about attempting to take enemy vills and moving forward. However, after many months, I 'pointwhored' my way back up with an additional several hundred vills taken...my defense was replenished and I started moving forward.

So, without knowing or thinking that someone in my situation had to take whatever was available to make ends meet...you just assumed (or was just being a douche like I was ) and labeled me the things you did.

But I don't hate ya playa. :icon_razz: Hating the player and not the game is absurd.

 

[DeletedUser]

As funny as it is to see you all attempting to discredit MichielK, wouldn't you be agreeing with him in criticizing Seagryfn if you criticize him?

If you criticize one, you criticize both according to your accusations. So in essence, whether or not he's a hypocrite doesn't change the validity of what he says.

To draw the line between your ridiculous assertion of pointwhore being the equivalent of "gossipwhore" and Seagryfn's telling us what we should be playing for:

Pointwhores are generally defined as someone who has less troops because they increase their points past the optimal production point. The point, though undefined, is generally considered within the 9k point area. Over 10k, and most players are considered pointwhores. This is general consensus, and has some basis.

On the other hand, a gossipwhore as I understand it (if we take into account what pointwhores are) is a person who gossips more than they play, or excessively. MichielK is in the top 50 for points with an average points per village that's very healthy, a good leader by the standards of most (refer to Seagryfn, and...was it you as well, haza? I'm not sure), hasn't lost a village since December 2008, and has 31 war conquers against SF, and no losses. How he falls into the category of gossipwhore, I don't know. So that has no basis.

Seagryfn tells us why we should play the game. She claims that we should play the game because we enjoy it, and we want to. I don't know about you all, but I enjoy winning. I play to win, and I play for friends. It's not the game I enjoy, it's the end-result. She's telling me, then, that I shouldn't play the game. How does that seem less presumptuous than what you are criticizing MK for? If you want to use blanket standards, and call MK a hypocrite and out-of-line on an analogy that is not even close to similar, then you must criticize Seagryfn as well.

Seagryfn's accusations don't fall into general consensus, nor do they apply to MK as she claims (she did quote him, after all). So much for doing your homework, eh?

 

[DeletedUser78416]

As funny as it is to see you all attempting to discredit MichielK, wouldn't you be agreeing with him in criticizing Seagryfn if you criticize him?

If you criticize one, you criticize both according to your accusations. So in essence, whether or not he's a hypocrite doesn't change the validity of what he says.

To draw the line between your ridiculous assertion of pointwhore being the equivalent of "gossipwhore" and Seagryfn's telling us what we should be playing for:

Pointwhores are generally defined as someone who has less troops because they increase their points past the optimal production point. The point, though undefined, is generally considered within the 9k point area. Over 10k, and most players are considered pointwhores. This is general consensus, and has some basis.

On the other hand, a gossipwhore as I understand it (if we take into account what pointwhores are) is a person who gossips more than they play, or excessively. MichielK is in the top 50 for points with an average points per village that's very healthy, a good leader by the standards of most (refer to Seagryfn, and...was it you as well, haza? I'm not sure), hasn't lost a village since December 2008, and has 31 war conquers against SF, and no losses. How he falls into the category of gossipwhore, I don't know. So that has no basis.

Seagryfn tells us why we should play the game. She claims that we should play the game because we enjoy it, and we want to. I don't know about you all, but I enjoy winning. I play to win, and I play for friends. It's not the game I enjoy, it's the end-result. She's telling me, then, that I shouldn't play the game. How does that seem less presumptuous than what you are criticizing MK for? If you want to use blanket standards, and call MK a hypocrite and out-of-line on an analogy that is not even close to similar, then you must criticize Seagryfn as well.

Seagryfn's accusations don't fall into general consensus, nor do they apply to MK as she claims (she did quote him, after all). So much for doing your homework, eh?

So, a gossipwhore is you?

:lol:

Seriously, does it bother you that much?

Next argument will be whether to cock your butt up to the left or right when farting. If to the left you are a poor TW player, but if to the right you are a beast. If you sit still and try to pass it silently, you are a lazy pointwhore.

 

[DeletedUser]

No, I personally don't believe I fall into the category of gossipwhore. I play 3 worlds, sit numerous accounts for tribemates, and do plenty of fighting.

No, it doesn't "bother me that much". I'm responding to an argument. Does it bother you so much that I am?

Because I don't want to feed the troll, I won't respond to you further unless you respond to actual arguments. I think people have seen enough of you and I bickering, and your humor.

 

[DeletedUser78416]

No, I personally don't believe I fall into the category of gossipwhore. I play 3 worlds, sit numerous accounts for tribemates, and do plenty of fighting.

No, it doesn't "bother me that much". I'm responding to an argument. Does it bother you so much that I am?

Because I don't want to feed the troll, I won't respond to you further unless you respond to actual arguments. I think people have seen enough of you and I bickering, and your humor.

Apparently you missed the sarcasm.

How about the hypocrisy of ridiculing me for 'arguing' all the time, but then when I stop you guys continue to argue with each other ten fold. And to boot, the things you guys argue about are retarded.

:icon_cool:

 

[MichielK]

heres you saying that anyone who wanted to vote for half priced nobles is basically agreeing to more point whoring... and this is aimed at a gaming style rather than a player.

Exactly, which is something very different from calling a specific player a point whore. You managed to accuse me of something and then your first example is the exact opposite of what you accuse me of :icon_rolleyes:

you have also called gammy a point whore on many occasions and/or whined about him taking lots of small barbs (despite the fact that people in your own tribe do that as well) and i really cant be bothered to add them all to this post, here is a couple of examples to get you going though.

Yes, I've called one player a point whore. One. Out of over a thousand posts, you managed to find one example to "prove your point". So, how does that actually prove that this...

Generally, the only way players get involved in my posts is for lack of skill, not simply having the wrong style...and I'm very careful to even do that. I'm pretty sure you'll find that most of my criticism is aimed at tribes rather than players, and at leadership style rather than playing style.

...is not true? One example does not constitute a habit or a pattern, and I kinda expected you to be smart enough to know that.

and just to wrap up...... heres you gossiping like an old fish wife just incase....

That's pretty funny. SG's post was pure speculation, my information came directly from the player involved...and I am the one gossipping? If SG publicly posts a bunch of lies, I'm not allowed to post the truth? That's one heck of a racket you've got going there :lol:

Finally, I realise that you're now SG's attack dog on the forum. That's fine, good for you, and congrats on being the Sauroni of the north. Heck, I never even knew SG was a ventriloquist. Next time you have an original thought you want to discuss rather than just blindly toting the company line, count me in....but for now, I'm done arguing with the help.

EDIT: P.S. It's kind of a shame. Until SG started blindly belittling a large number of players (including some of her own tribemates and allies), this was was being fought pretty respectful aside from the occasional incident. I guess SG thinks she'll get more activity out of some people if she makes it more negative. Ah well, so be it.

 

[MichielK]

So, a gossipwhore is you?

:lol:

Seriously, does it bother you that much?

Next argument will be whether to cock your butt up to the left or right when farting. If to the left you are a poor TW player, but if to the right you are a beast. If you sit still and try to pass it silently, you are a lazy pointwhore.

:lol:

That's pretty funny, and kinda proves my point: you cannot set arbitrary standards about how you can tell the "real" players from everyone else and then expect to receive no criticism about it.

On the other hand, a gossipwhore as I understand it (if we take into account what pointwhores are) is a person who gossips more than they play, or excessively. MichielK is in the top 50 for points with an average points per village that's very healthy, a good leader by the standards of most (refer to Seagryfn, and...was it you as well, haza? I'm not sure), hasn't lost a village since December 2008, and has 31 war conquers against SF, and no losses. How he falls into the category of gossipwhore, I don't know. So that has no basis.

Like I said, I prefer looking at the whole picture rather than just at one aspect. SG on the other hand doesn't care about war records, activity or tribal contributions...you post stats, you're a gossipwhore. You argue on the forums, you're a gossipwhore. SG is arguing that in-game is the only thing that counts, and then immediately dismisses dozens of players as substandard because of things that happen outside the game. Go figure.

 

[DeletedUser]

That's pretty funny. SG's post was pure speculation, my information came directly from the player involved...and I am the one gossipping?

Well spotted, looks like Spank me Silly deleted his account :icon_eek: He was ranked 5th in Plight, top 25 worldwide, and just donated 6.5 million points to the big grey empire.

I have no clue about why he did this, since he wasn't under heavy pressure from us. I can only assume something happened internally in Plight, but that's pure speculation. While I'm sure someone will respond that this is part of the grand master plan to euthanise W16, I think most of us would consider it a bad sign when your biggest members start deleting their accounts.

im sorry, but do you really think that you can claim that? your information is speculation, you even said so yourself in that post (the bolded bit) and then you say her answer is speculation not yours... can you make your mind up please.

and the reason you give is that something I did not say may be equally bad?

well contradicted yourself there didnt you? you've never said someone was a point whore but you have... and by the logic you said it in you were also calling some of your tribe mates point whores as well... so maybe you need to stop blindly belittling your allies and tribesmates instead :icon_wink:

i simply said the term (the whore part) was just as bad, calling someone a whore no matter what isnt particularly good but you call gammy a point whore for spending lots of time(whoring) nobling small barbs but you cant take the heat when the term gossip whore turns up because you spend lots of time(whoring) arguing over facts on here. its simply a way to play the game, if you can criticise people for playing it one way why cant you be criticised for playing it another? thats the point im arguing. you cant get worked up over being called something if you call people something quite similar and your the only one getting worked up over it. alot (if not all) of PnP is just using stats to gossip about events. i believe you said it best though when you said...

For example, you complained about being treated badly on the forums. I reply that it's a bit odd to go to the PnP forums and complain about seeing PnP.

so your allowed to try and make others look bad but as soon as it turns back on you its suddenly wrong? i wasnt aware that we had a toddler tantrum allowance just for you here :icon_neutral:

Finally, I realise that you're now SG's attack dog on the forum. That's fine, good for you, and congrats on being the Sauroni of the north. Heck, I never even knew SG was a ventriloquist. Next time you have an original thought you want to discuss rather than just blindly toting the company line, count me in....but for now, I'm done arguing with the help.

EDIT: P.S. It's kind of a shame. Until SG started blindly belittling a large number of players (including some of her own tribemates and allies), this was was being fought pretty respectful aside from the occasional incident. I guess SG thinks she'll get more activity out of some people if she makes it more negative. Ah well, so be it.

im no ones attack dog, i simply like messing around on here, i'd say i was a gossip whore as well lol. considering sauroni is a damn good player i'll take that as a compliment, i'd rather be the sauroni of the north than the MichielK of anywhere thats for sure.

and how has she blindly belittled her allies? she simply said that gossip whores will try to make each other look bad to get those simply playing tw on the other team to feel they are losing so they give up. basically she described pnp for exactly what it is. so she doesnt agree with it, so what? i like gossipwhoring and seagryfn doesnt, that doesnt mean she has belittled me, and if any allies were bothered by it they would say so wouldnt they? otherwise they couldnt have been that bothered by it after all :icon_rolleyes:

you may want people to think we are all mindless zombies over here led by an all powerful and evil, lying dictator but we arent.

P.S. It's kind of a shame. Until SG started blindly belittling a large number of players (including some of her own tribemates and allies), this was was being fought pretty respectful aside from the occasional incident. I guess SG thinks she'll get more activity out of some people if she makes it more negative. Ah well, so be it.

so you think that calling seagryfn a blatant liar behind her back is respectful? i wouldnt class it as that...

 

[DeletedUser]

im no ones attack dog, i simply like messing around on here, i'd say i was a gossip whore as well lol. considering sauroni is a damn good player i'll take that as a compliment

:lol::lol::lol::lol:

 

[MichielK]

im sorry, but do you really think that you can claim that? your information is speculation, you even said so yourself in that post (the bolded bit) and then you say her answer is speculation not yours... can you make your mind up please.

SG's reply made it clear that my information on Spank was far more solid than hers. After all, if her best explanation was "oh, he forgot to set a sitter", that makes it clear to me that she had no idea what Spank felt about her, and all but eliminates any chance that the two of them talked it out and reconciled. Given that new information, I felt comfortable about being more confident about my "speculation".

well contradicted yourself there didnt you? you've never said someone was a point whore but you have... and by the logic you said it in you were also calling some of your tribe mates point whores as well... so maybe you need to stop blindly belittling your allies and tribesmates instead :icon_wink:

I clearly said that I generally don't do that, and certainly don't go onto the forum claiming people are bad players in-game for what they do outside the game. In fact, I even quoted that back to you in case you missed it. Apparently you missed it again :icon_rolleyes:

As for my tribemates: if some of them seem like pointwhores to you, you're clearly missing some important things...things that I can see pretty easily. We're a tribe. We all contribute. And if someone contributes to the war, why on earth would I care which barbs they noble or what they post on the forums?

Btw, impressive quotes, especially considering they come from a wild variety of topics and threads. Must've taken you ages to dig all that up...no wonder it took you 3 days to reply.

im no ones attack dog, i simply like messing around on here, i'd say i was a gossip whore as well lol. considering sauroni is a damn good player i'll take that as a compliment

:lol:

and how has she blindly belittled her allies? she simply said that gossip whores will try to make each other look bad to get those simply playing tw on the other team to feel they are losing so they give up. basically she described pnp for exactly what it is. so she doesnt agree with it, so what? i like gossipwhoring and seagryfn doesnt

She doesn't? You do realise that you're talking about someone with nearly as many forum posts as me, right? She posted both the declaration on C² and the declaration on PnX, so clearly she is no stranger to PnP. Heck, she started and completed the entire "Player versus Player" tournament, which was...wait for it...a whole series of threads aimed at discussing stats to determine which player was superior. She is one of the best known PnP posters in this world, and for her to suddenly have a change of heart about this seems awfully convenient.

so you think that calling seagryfn a blatant liar behind her back is respectful? i wouldnt class it as that...

Behind her back? I'm pretty sure I called her a blatant liar to her face. You may not like the message, but you can hardly argue I'm being sneaky about it :icon_razz:

 

[DeletedUser78416]

So what happened to Spank again, I missed that one?

 

[DeletedUser]

He spontaneously and without warning went barb.

 

[DeletedUser78416]

He spontaneously and without warning went barb.

I know that, but the argument above was implying to why.

 

[DeletedUser]

Well, he was known to have disagreements with the leadership of Plight. However, Seagryfn insists that he forgot to set a sitter, and ran out of premium, and had gone for 2 weeks without it before going barb. MichielK believes that the disagreements finally had him fed up with Plight, as Spank had even considered defecting outright prior (I'm not sure when he wanted to do this, or if it was even during this war, but probably not this war).

 

[Seagryfn]

SG publicly posts a bunch of lies, I'm not allowed to post the truth? That's one heck of a racket you've got going there :lol:

EDIT: P.S. It's kind of a shame. Until SG started blindly belittling a large number of players (including some of her own tribemates and allies), this was was being fought pretty respectful aside from the occasional incident. I guess SG thinks she'll get more activity out of some people if she makes it more negative. Ah well, so be it.

I realise that you're now SG's attack dog on the forum. That's fine, good for you, and congrats on being the Sauroni of the north. Heck, I never even knew SG was a ventriloquist. Next time you have an original thought you want to discuss rather than just blindly toting the company line, count me in....but for now, I'm done arguing with the help.

I called her a blatant liar to her face. You may not like the message, but you can hardly argue I'm being sneaky about it :icon_razz:

Alright, whoa. Please. The only "negativity" I am seeing here is all originating from one source; the man quoted. "Blatant liar?" "attack dog?" No "original thought?" "the help?" (as in socially inferior) and so much more! Rather rough and demeaning language from somone professing to be "pretty respectful." For a person who claims the moral highground, these remarks directed at Haza are dehumanizing and I believe that is uncalled for and out of line.

you still say I'm making assumptions? :icon_rolleyes:

Yes, MK, quite a few. The tragedy here is you fail to see or acknowledge the error of your assumptions. As it appears to me, once you have made an assumption, embelished it, and repeated it constantly, you convince yourself it was the original truth. It seems from my viewpoint, perhaps, that you fuel your own hatred wholecloth from the fabric of your imagination. In superiority, you feel justified in treating others as substandard persons. I implore you to step back from this path before it permanently changes the man of good character that I used to respect.

Before this post, I have gone out of my way to avoid naming personal names when discussing any behavior that might be looked at as unsavory by the reader. Yes, I have posted some quotes... but only to define the topic of discussion, and not to attack the integrity of the poster. I have addressed players by name that I wanted to acknowledge for good things. I have not intentionally addressed any comments potentially viewed as bad things to a single person previously in this thread. But now, I feel I must do so after MichielK's personal debasement of Haza. Lets look at a just a few of the ways in which he propogates these embelishments and assumptions:

SG's reply made it clear that my information on Spank was far more solid than hers. After all, if her best explanation was "oh, he forgot to set a sitter", that makes it clear to me that she had no idea what Spank felt about her, and all but eliminates any chance that the two of them talked it out and reconciled. Given that new information, I felt comfortable about being more confident about my "speculation".

Okay... lets look at this example first. You put fabricated words in my mouth. You write that I said, "he forgot to set a sitter." Not once did I ever say such a thing. Re-read it. From THAT false assumption on your part, your next cognitive leap is that you can "all but eliminate any chance" that Bob (Spank) and I ever talked things out, or that I had any idea what he felt about me. Thats a rather monumental escalation in clarity on your part, based on your 'confident speculation,' as you say.

Michiel... you have no difinitive knowledge, nor have you asked. You speculated. You seem to have some mystical prescience that empowers you to see and know all, and then proclaim it as truth, and therefore it must be, amen! And, the next thing you know... others on the forum start quoting you, and claiming it as truth, and it must be, because YOU said it! :icon_rolleyes:

Seagryfn insists that he forgot to set a sitter

Again, false. Go back to your source. The source for this comment was MichielK saying that Seagryfn says...

However, unlike Michiel, I would not banty the term "liar" about. Instead, I would instead say that Michiel seems to have mis-remembered facts, then misrepresented them. Perhaps it was not intentional at first, but, after getting it wrong, he and others are convinced it must be true from then on, and thus propigate the falsehood. :icon_eek: Lets look at another instance:

she started and completed the entire "Player versus Player" tournament, which was...wait for it...a whole series of threads aimed at discussing stats to determine which player was superior.

Utterly false and misrepresentational. The entire idea and concept belonged to u6s5l. He said that he adopted the idea from the forums of another world. He started the contest. He got many people, especially Jurasu, excited and eager to participate. I joined only at the 11th hour so that we would reach the quota of total players that u6s5l. wanted to partake. u6s5l. started the tournament a week later; he determined all the original match ups. And then... just as fast, he lost all desire to be involved and gave up: u6s5l. on 2009,October 5th, 04:15 wrote:
Someone else run this, I have no time nor will to run such a tourney atm. I shouldn't have started it. I only volunteered to take over after u6s5l. abandoned the contest and then only if no one objected. People were having fun, and getting involved, and I did not desire to see them let down and disappointed.

Once again, MichielK, you have mis-remembered facts, then misrepresented them, then assume you are perfectly correct. And, you seem to be adding negativity to the mere discussion of it! Your words... "tournament, which was...wait for it...a whole series of threads aimed at discussing stats to determine which player was superior."

I'm not sure what "wait for it" was thrown in there for? Maybe because there was no dramatic theme-music soundtrack in the background going Duh-duh-DAH prehaps? :lol:
But, you seem to be using melodrama, like a saleman trying to make a bogus product pitch, that somehow I must enjoy and advocate discussing stats to determine player superiority. Again, a false assumption on your part, based completely on "facts" that you misremembered, that have apparently provided you with a divine epiphany into my "apparent" truest desires. :icon_neutral: Based on that completely false recollection of yours, let us see what OTHER "factual" conclusions you leapt to?

You do realise that you're talking about someone with nearly as many forum posts as me, right? She posted both the declaration on C² and the declaration on PnX, so clearly she is no stranger to PnP. Heck, she started and completed the entire "Player versus Player" tournament, which was...wait for it...a whole series of threads aimed at discussing stats to determine which player was superior. She is one of the best known PnP posters in this world, and for her to suddenly have a change of heart about this seems awfully convenient.

I may have "nearly" as many forum posts as you, and from that you conclude that I support discussing stats to determine which player was superior? Lets NOT assume and actually LOOK at those forum posts then...

OVER HALF are in the "General" section of the Tribalwars forums. In the topics on "Questions" "Bug Reports" "In game Moderation Discussion." I post answers to players who need help to play the game, advice to make their playing experience better, to help hurdle problems they encounter and to steer them clear of rules breaches. I have ALSO posted in the "Community" forums, and visit worlds that I moderate in game. I post where ever people are frustrated and confused, angry and looking for solutions. I post to offer a hand up to a player who is down. I post to stand up for a player who is wrongfully tyrannized. I do not post with a fervent yearning to prove that some statistical superiority elevates me a greater human being than people who aren't on my side. I believe that courage comes from the heart, and from doing what you enjoy, and from never losing sight of your goals. I personally hold true that the real winners (in lfe and in games) are the players who keep on playing and don't give up.

Seagryfn,
I find it odd that you have never mentioned this aversion to discussing stats until recently. Nearly 700 posts on the forum, and it never came up until the last few. I wonder why that is...surely it has nothing to do with the fact that village totals are becoming the stat of choice, and that stat indicates rather severe problems in your tribe. Nah, that can't be it! :icon_razz:

If people want to discuss the stats, let them discuss the stats. No rules are broken, nobody's getting hurt, and I'm sure you'd have no problem with it if the situation was reversed and you were the healthily growing tribe while we were the ones losing members left and right. Instead, you've lost nearly a quarter of your members since the war was announced, including many large, active and skilled players, and your claim that the other side is having the same problems is a bald-faced lie. Nobody has problems that severe.

Any stats can be twisted to support any argument the speaker cares to make. This data (below) was captured at the moment C² declared war on Plight:
Tribalwars Tribe Profile: Complete Carnage, Members: 76
Tribalwars Tribe Profile: Euthanasia, Members: 57
Tribalwars Tribe Profile: Semper Fidelis, Members: 60
And, TODAY:
C² Members: 65 (8 left, 3 went gray) Net loss 11 members
Plight Members: 53 (4 left, 2 went gray, 2 joined) Net loss 4 members
SF Members: 52 (10 left, 2 went gray, 4 joined) Net loss 8 members

"you've lost nearly a quarter of your members since the war was announced"
Hey, Michiel... if I give you $4, would you give me $13 change back? :lol:

What I *DO* ask is, WHERE I said people should not post stats?? I beleive that I have said the following:

*meh* Any stats can be twisted to support any argument the speaker cares to make. As I said earlier, gossipwhores always win and cannot be beaten. That does not make an argument representational of the whole picture, even if the facts presented are "true."

The point is... numbers are numbers. The REAL winners are the players who keep on playing and don't give up.)

:lol: What is important is that what you choose to do is what makes you happy, and don't try to compete with what you are not, you will only waste your time.
Now, I am sure there are plenty of people who will "argue" my *opinion.* Knock your bad selves out if that is what makes you happy; that is what you are here for afterall.
So, alexhol... don't get angry trying to compete with gossipwhores. You cannot win and you will only waste your time.
Just find what you like to do and enjoy yourself doing it.

If you are happy posting stats AND fighting, then, posts stats AND fight!! :icon_rolleyes: My comment was addressed to persons who got angry (the opposite of happy) playing a game they could easily walk away from in favor of something more enjoyable. Where did I "blindly belittle a large number of players" by demanding that people who can talk are not respectible fighters? Or people who can fight are not respectable talkers? Or people who choose not to partake in the war(s) at all are forbidden to enjoy themselves?

I said, "What is important is that what you choose to do is what makes you happy," and regardless of what you can imagine and fabricate to replace those words with, I said what I meant and I meant what I said.

Behind her back? I'm pretty sure I called her a blatant liar to her face. You may not like the message, but you can hardly argue I'm being sneaky about it :icon_razz:

:icon_redface: How embarassing. Imaginary "facts" come into being, then support your arguements; you come to actually believe in them yourself, and then provide a sermon to the assembled public of W16 wherin you delude others into believing that character attacks are acceptible if supported by "acquired" facts? :icon_sad:

Michiel, it seems (in my personal opinion) that there are some personal issues clouding objectivity here. I believe that your health and mental state would improve from stepping back and by refraining from personal integrity attacks. I would also ask that you not employ dehumanizing remarks against others. Call me what you feel you must... I'm a big girl and I've been through worse than most can even imagine dishing out, but please don't denegrate Haza or anyone else. I publically thank you in advance, hoping that respect and civility will once again return to these forums.

~ Seagryfn

 

[MichielK]

If you are happy posting stats AND fighting, then, posts stats AND fight!! :icon_rolleyes: My comment was addressed to persons who got angry (the opposite of happy) playing a game they could easily walk away from in favor of something more enjoyable. Where did I "blindly belittle a large number of players" by demanding that people who can talk are not respectible fighters? Or people who can fight are not respectable talkers? Or people who choose not to partake in the war(s) at all are forbidden to enjoy themselves?

Right here:

(In my opinion) TW is populated by 4 kinds of people: pointwhores, ODwhores, gossipwhores and players.
Each has their own "game" that they prefer to play.

1. The first just wish to build their tiny empires one player/gray at a time; they often make deals to be excluded from world events. SimCity.
2. The second focus on easy targets to pad their stats in order to claim "prowess;" prestige is more important to them than challenge.
3. Gossipwhores focus on "spin" and propaganda. Stats are selectively massaged and distorted to support any premise, however, claiming they are 'true' details does not make the conclusion reached genuinely representational. They often use phrases like "I can only suppose..." and "anyone can see..." to bolster their own validity. It is important to realize that Gossipwhores cannot be beaten; ego, or "virtual" prestige, is all that matters and facts can always be redefined for their gratification.
4. Players are here to, well... to play the game. Large or small, notorious or obscure, talkative or quiet, they enjoy the challenge of a game well played.

I find this split into 4 types not just completely arbitrary, but demeaning to a large number of players. I've focused on the "gossipwhores" in previous posts, but the same is true of the "pointwhores" and "ODwhores".

There are people out there who take small barbs and build them to provide more support troops for their tribemates, and people who take easy targets because they realise that their current easy target may be a very difficult target later on (besides, a red dot is a red dot), or people who point out stats on the forum because they're genuinely interested in having a quality discussion. These are all qualities to be commended, and in fact qualities that can be found in some of the most valuable members of any tribe.

The bottom line is that I believe it's short-sighted to judge the quality of a player by looking at one aspect of the way they spend their time. The fact that someone focuses on small barbs, easy targets or pointing out stats on the forum does not disqualify them from being "players", and to argue otherwise shows a level of arrogance that I could not attain with years of practice.

Before anyone starts: yes, I have made the occasional judgement call about specific players in the past as well. However, I base my calls (rare as they are) on more information than just their nobling pattern or their post count. Besides, I think it's pretty telling that even the person who was used as an example above (Gammy) still feels confident that if he contacts me, he'll get treated fairly and with respect.

I'm not going to bother responding to every other accusation and claim you made in your post, because it's simply not worth the time and effort. You can have the moral high ground if you want, I don't need it. I'm perfectly content down here, waiting for the inevitable moment when the people you've slighted shove you off your lofty perch. Remember to wave at me on your way down.

Finally, I will address the one part of your post where you actually had a point:

Haza, you have both the right to voice your opinion and the right to be argued on it respectfully. The fact that I had a legitimate reason to fire at someone doesn't give me the right to just try to mow you down because you were in the way. The attack dog comment was a cheap shot, and I shouldn't have made it.

 

[DeletedUser]

"Regardless he let his premium lapse while on vacation without a sitter."

Are you suggesting he didn't forget to place a sitter? That's only more detrimental, as any player who likes his tribe will set his tribe as a sitter to use his troops while he is gone...or at least keep his account alive.