Premades.

[DeletedUser]

Extended grammar/spelling flaming sessions bore me with the pettiness it shows both sides in the debate to have, so i will not rebuke, because whether one person knows the meaning of a word better than the other has no real outcome on an argument, and anyone arguing the point in such detail perhaps feels they cannot prevail otherwise.

Hey, it started when you attempted to discredit my statement by dissecting a subjective verb and referring to your explanation as "tutoring". But sure, we can refrain from prolonging this boring argument over grammar any longer.

But in regards to my comments and that map, that was coming from my impartial position as a blogger, and I do not see anything to suggest slander or libel.

The comments/map weren't from your blog, but from some top or promising tribes thread... and by no means was it impartial:

Where are an excellent tribe, only a few minor hickups of noob tribes trying to attack them

You're telling me this isn't an impartial/biased personal opinion? That's nonsense.

Not only has Hades mass recruited itself out of being even half of the member base it originally was so early on in the world (as indicated by the spread and low quality of some of the members), but it is struggling to stay in the top 20 tribes.

We haven't mass-recruited by any means; and if you looked at our spread you would see that it is significantly clustered to such an annoying degree. This is due to pre-registration. It is evident (from the inside at least) that the core of our tribe is suffering in their expansion due to this terrible strategic mistake on my part as to trust pre-registration. But back to my point, there was and has never been mass-recruiting.

What, may I ask, is your definition of said "mass-recruiting?"

In regards to putting up our skype conversation, you made a claim suggesting you were unaware of any diplomacy between our parties. I provided the evidence to prove that you in fact were completely aware of the diplomatic offers. I'll violate any means of communication if it devalues what I consider to be a lie presented in your argument.

either you are petty enough to exaggerate - There have not only been "two" approaches, if you wish for me to dig into my skype chats and bring forth 2 more then so be it. There have been more than two approaches with the intent to create diplomatic binds between our tribe. Fact.

Foolish enough to keep turning them down - And whether our decision is 'foolish' your opinion. We have our independent thoughts and can rightfully decipher between which diplomacy will benefit or hurt us.

Or not strong willed enough to tell them where you stand. - On multiple occasions have I told your diplomat that we do not want diplomacy with Where? This is a fact, not to be debated. And again, I will post skype chats if you wish to challenge this point.

In my humble opinion, when that is the case of any tribe it loses the right to hbe mentioned and discussed in a thread that is undoubtedly intended for promising (not saying Hades isn't, but using rank as a sole indicator strongly suggests it) tribes, otherwise there simply isn't any practical purpose of wasting the time on it.
Although I am not saying the things I am because of your position as Duke, it is worth mentioning that the provenance of the source is in fact in said position, meaning that you would undoubtedly thing your tribe deserved a mention.
Most others I believe would have overlooked the tribe, but I cannot blame you for your selfish intentions, I'm sure I would do the same in your position.

Okay, I can see where you're coming from on this sole point. But this all rooted from me stating a simple fact; that we are fluctuating between the ranks of 14-19 respectively. We are one of the tribes left on the list, in which at the beginning of the world I said I would update the progress of the tribes that continue to exist. This wasn't a biased opinion, this was merely stating a fact and shouldn't be perceived as selfish.

 

[DeletedUser1082]

The comments/map weren't from your blog, but from some top or promising tribes thread... and by no means was it impartial:

You're telling me this isn't an impartial/biased personal opinion? That's nonsense.

I'm telling you it is an impartial opinion, I believe that Where? Is an excellent tribe. I believed it before I joined and I believe it now, if I was outside of the tribe and knew the same things I knew about it, even if my tribe was enemies with it, I would believe the same thing.

We haven't mass-recruited by any means; and if you looked at our spread you would see that it is significantly clustered to such an annoying degree. This is due to pre-registration. It is evident (from the inside at least) that the core of our tribe is suffering in their expansion due to this terrible strategic mistake on my part as to trust pre-registration. But back to my point, there was and has never been mass-recruiting.

What, may I ask, is your definition of said "mass-recruiting?"

I find it hard to believe that you had 49 members in your premade all preregistered to join, and if you did then I would say that you mass recruited before the world was even open, as 49 members cannot all be to the same quality any good Duke would want in his tribe under ideal circumstances. The fact that you have maxed your member limit also suggests that were the settings different you would recruit more members.

In regards to putting up our skype conversation, you made a claim suggesting you were unaware of any diplomacy between our parties. I provided the evidence to prove that you in fact were completely aware of the diplomatic offers. I'll violate any means of communication if it devalues what I consider to be a lie presented in your argument.

I still am unaware of any diplomacy, as I believe there is none, but if you mean my awareness to any diplomatic discussion, then I have not said anywhere that I was unaware of this. If you are referring to the underlined Skype quote, that isn't a lie, I said I didn't know that particular part of the story, which was completely true. I've never said I didn't know about diplomatic discussions. Maybe I should take a Skype screenshot of something ridiculous taken out of context because I believe you are lying?

either you are petty enough to exaggerate - There have not only been "two" approaches, if you wish for me to dig into my skype chats and bring forth 2 more then so be it. There have been more than two approaches with the intent to create diplomatic binds between our tribe. Fact.

Foolish enough to keep turning them down - And whether our decision is 'foolish' your opinion. We have our independent thoughts and can rightfully decipher between which diplomacy will benefit or hurt us.

Or not strong willed enough to tell them where you stand. - On multiple occasions have I told your diplomat that we do not want diplomacy with Where? This is a fact, not to be debated. And again, I will post skype chats if you wish to challenge this point.

Debunking each does not serve you as I did not say any of them were specifically true, only that in all practical examples I could think of one of them had to be true, and now it would seem to be the 3rd, as a strong and self confident leader would say "No, Never, Stop asking."

 

[DeletedUser]

I'm telling you it is an impartial opinion, I believe that Where? Is an excellent tribe. I believed it before I joined and I believe it now, if I was outside of the tribe and knew the same things I knew about it, even if my tribe was enemies with it, I would believe the same thing.

The emphasis wasn't meant to be put on the Where are an excellent tribe bit, but only a few minor hickups of noob tribes trying to attack them. That, is in fact the impartial and biased part of the statement I presented. Knowing that, would you not call that an impartial deduction?

I find it hard to believe that you had 49 members in your premade all preregistered to join, and if you did then I would say that you mass recruited before the world was even open, as 49 members cannot all be to the same quality any good Duke would want in his tribe under ideal circumstances. The fact that you have maxed your member limit also suggests that were the settings different you would recruit more members.

Yes, some number around 46 members of ours were pre-registered. The last few (4 or so?) were recruits. And over the past five weeks my team of leaders has slowly but surely started the process of eliminating the players whom we deem lower-quality and replacing them with surrounding recruits as any progressive tribe should. We never intended to keep our 'premade' 46 members for the duration of our existence and will continue to drop and replace as we see fit.

but if you mean my awareness to any diplomatic discussion, then I have not said anywhere that I was unaware of this. [As to the suggestion that Where? Offer you diplomacy on a weekly basis, I couldn't possibly comment, but...]

This previous statement in brackets appears to suggest you lacked a knowledge of Where?s diplomatic proposals sent to Hades. Thus the skype chat was provided to counteract that.

Debunking the three hypothesis you provided was necessary as I have evidence to support that these were out of the question and are false. All three are negative hypothesis and for me to not respond to them would perhaps suggest that they were true.

I honestly don't think we can get any further in our debate; although I acknowledge and appreciate the change of attitude on your end from condescending to somewhat respectful I'd say. It's nice to converse with someone when they don't consider them worthy of tutoring you.

 

[DeletedUser1082]

The emphasis wasn't meant to be put on the Where are an excellent tribe bit, but only a few minor hickups of noob tribes trying to attack them. That, is in fact the impartial and biased part of the statement I presented. Knowing that, would you not call that an impartial deduction?

I understand impartial and biased to mean completely opposite things, I apologise for correcting you in terms of wording but they are in fact polar opposites.
In this case, you are equally biased by all respects, in my opinion more so because I have learned to be unbiased.
If you ask the Duke of any tribe how good he thinks his tribe is, regardless of how bad they might actually be, he will say they aren't a "noob tribe" (again using the practical example, not insinuating or hinting anything)

Just because my comments are what I would say if I were biased, does not mean I am biased, it simply means that such comments are so strongly supported by fact and logic that they are undeniable by anyone outside of someone such as yourself who holds the completely opposite viewpoint.

Yes, some number around 46 members of ours were pre-registered. The last few (4 or so?) were recruits. And over the past five weeks my team of leaders has slowly but surely started the process of eliminating the players whom we deem lower-quality and replacing them with surrounding recruits as any progressive tribe should. We never intended to keep our 'premade' 46 members for the duration of our existence and will continue to drop and replace as we see fit.

As you admitted, the preregistration was a crippling mistake, and accepting sub-standard members in the first place supports my previous statement of mass recruiting into a premade. It also shows you did not make the process of selecting your members nearly as rigorous as it should have been.

I honestly don't think we can get any further in our debate; although I acknowledge and appreciate the change of attitude on your end from condescending to somewhat respectful I'd say. It's nice to converse with someone when they don't consider them worthy of tutoring you.

This is how I strive to be in all aspects of my posting, I was caught off guard and corrected my own attitude with a proverbial slap on the wrist.

I think in many respects I am worthy of tutoring you, but I hold myself open to the possibility that this can be reversed as I have never played with you, however from what little observations I have made of your account and your Duking ability, not saying you are in any way bad, but I may be superior.
Just because I treat people like they are better than me does not mean they are, that's how I am with everyone, so it shouldn't make you feel privileged. I'm talking generally of course and not specifically to you Renesis.

 

[DeletedUser]

Disclaimer: I meant to say partial in both instances, or the equivalent to the meaning of biased. My apologies.

In this case, you are equally biased by all respects, in my opinion more so because I have learned to be unbiased.
If you ask the Duke of any tribe how good he thinks his tribe is, regardless of how bad they might actually be, he will say they aren't a "noob tribe" (again using the practical example, not insinuating or hinting anything)

I'm not trying to argue from my personal duke perspective but from your perspective. That came out confusing, although my justification is in the next quote reply below...

Just because my comments are what I would say if I were biased, does not mean I am biased, it simply means that such comments are so strongly supported by fact and logic that they are undeniable by anyone outside of someone such as yourself who holds the completely opposite viewpoint.

I beg to differ in the statement that what would be your unbiased beliefs, are supported by fact or logic... at this point. As the only negative comments are in regards to our personal affairs with Where?. Surely in a month from now, outsiders not from Where? will have enough fact and substantial information to reason their own opinions about us. And in due time, I will accept that you will have an opinion as a blogger and a different one as a player. It's too early to say you can support the unbiased speculations as an outsider.

As you admitted, the preregistration was a crippling mistake, and accepting sub-standard members in the first place supports my previous statement of mass recruiting into a premade. It also shows you did not make the process of selecting your members nearly as rigorous as it should have been.

Absolutely, a fair and confirmed conclusion throughout this entire quote.

I think in many respects I am worthy of tutoring you, but I hold myself open to the possibility that this can be reversed as I have never played with you, however from what little observations I have made of your account and your Duking ability, not saying you are in any way bad, but I may be superior.
Just because I treat people like they are better than me does not mean they are, that's how I am with everyone, so it shouldn't make you feel privileged. I'm talking generally of course and not specifically to you Renesis.

I'm glad you brought it up though - as I can easily admit you are in fact superior regarding leadership provided your experience and knowledgeable revelations that I have yet to even question. I have no problem with admitting this, although my (now non-existent) problem was just the way in which being "tutored" can be misinterpreted and taken into offense. It's funny how the slightly wrong choice of words can come off in a completely different way.

 

[DeletedUser106973]

Ah cool - glad to hear. Just from a quick glance, the remaining tribes from the master list of premades only consist of 3.

TPT - Got rid of dead weight, smaller group of good players - solid move.
Hades - Fluctuating around the general area of rank 14-19.
LORDS - Slowly crawled up the ranks, currently securing the 8th position. Props to them.

FOOD still stayed as well. We just changed name to Onfire.

 

[DeletedUser103537]

Yeah FOOD and Onfire are the same thing no leadership changes or anything. I was the duke of both. I actually wanted to call the tribe onfire.

 

[One Last Shot...]

Oh the good old days when less than 40 premades join each worlds, when premades were more entertaining to watch and read.

/misses those times