Technically not! Same old BS from you Lol ... All that was posted by Aser0 was a skype convo with a name scribbled out.... whoop dee doo!! That's not proof!
I mean I could have had a convo with my duke about NAM players we didn't want/trust in our tribe... Say they are jumping to RoyalE, kick and internal them, scribble the names out of the skype convo and post here saying RoyalE are dirty backstabbers... come on man.
Like it has been mentioned NUMEROUS times to you which you obviously ignore... Please show where our duke (or anyone in NAM at this point) has been in a convo and agreed to the terms this "scribbled out who knows who they are person" suggested??
I am sure it was in the forum somewhere that a NAM player was sitting the account after the dismissal. Ok this does not show treachery before the dismissal but what it does show is that these accounts were being used at this point to help NAM by collecting reports data and killing troops.
So either way some of the accounts were assets to NAM even if it was only after the dismissals.
NAM obviously stacked royalE targets and helped tribes against royale on multiple occassions as your duke said they did inform civil that they were faking to pretend to help royalE. So if you want to play the offended party lets add the tribe your members were supporting and helping out with info. As well as Civil gifting villages behind RoyalE lines so that not as much d can go to the fronts when the war starts.
Tribes: NAM, CIVIL
Total conquers against opposite side:
Side 1: 4,026
Side 2: 1,395
Points value of total conquers against opposite side:
Side 1: 36,152,167
Side 2: 13,062,113