stellro
Guest
whats that Dean - it was just letters in a random order which made no sense to me :icon_wink:
DeletedUser
Guest
Its true though, yous never admit you're wrong.
Like asking a 4 year old what's 5 + 5 and they saying I know, but I'm not telling you. Instead of saying.... I have no clue.
stellro
Guest
Where have I been wrong???
(barring the East West mistake thing but that was a long day :lol
Feel free to give examples - but I assure you a2cip is barking up the wrong tree and if this has come out differently then I apolgise however I dont think it did based on Chao's reaction to my original post as it even brought Met out of the woodwork to respond....so to my knowledge the only person with any conflict to this is the one person who got it wrong....
(barring the East West mistake thing but that was a long day :lol
Feel free to give examples - but I assure you a2cip is barking up the wrong tree and if this has come out differently then I apolgise however I dont think it did based on Chao's reaction to my original post as it even brought Met out of the woodwork to respond....so to my knowledge the only person with any conflict to this is the one person who got it wrong....
DeletedUser
Guest
Read my last post.
DeletedUser
Guest
Haha, aright mate, you are right. Whatever makes you happy.:icon_wink:
stellro
Guest
See - Im right again
And to hopefully spell it out to a2cip - my actual words - hows this can be confusing is beyond me????
And to hopefully spell it out to a2cip - my actual words - hows this can be confusing is beyond me????
Last edited:
chief ed
Guest
Partly right, and partly wrong Stellro
Diplomacy WAS cancelled with both GOH and OU.....and at that time, the discussion was going on as to which we should war, and which we should strengthen our prior alliance with.
You noted about the boredom in the south....you couldn't be more correct about anything! We had to war someone, it appeared the wish of more of our members that it was you and not OU. So, by democratic majority, we re-tied the knot with OU and, after over a week from cancelling our alliance with GOH, we declared.
I'm afraid you'll just have to take my word for it that OU was informed of dropping diplomacy (or ask metty to forward you the mail?) and only after our council had made it's decision, did I (yes, me personally) talk with metty and von hollander (as OU had joined with KEA by then) to re-instate the diplomacy.
stellro
Guest
As your aware of the contact I had at the time with TAC & Drew I was made aware of the inactive problems (players quitting etc) so as I said - we are not bitter about this decision - just disappointed based on our original premise of building our alliance with the format of FAIL / OWNED & GOH ruling the south of world 14 collectively - with no mention of OU - now perhaps slightly naive of us and tbf we had better relations with the majority of FAIL than OWNED (barring a few exceptions) which may have led to the desire to war against us rather than OU - with the acknowledgement of geographic distance playing a factor.
It was however backword on the original agreement with the same players involved (Me, Sylb, Dou, Drew, TAC, Ed & Wozz - obviously Tango & Fabs at the time) - just under a new name of FOE (barring the new additions of NEXT in each tribe who I also understand were quite vocal in their push towards warring with GOH). That is where the disappoint lies which if looked at perspectively Im sure can be understood as it is players like vaminos & basid who have made their voices heard who were not involved in the forming of our collective group which worked so well against NEXT and aspired to meeting that original goal.
It cannot be said in anyway that GOH did not do everything it could to accomodate FAIL / OWNED in regards to our diplomacy (withdrew from talks with tribes who we believed were a future target of FAIL / OWNED's - happily gave villages back when certain players did not grasp territory - accomodated FAIL / OWNED growth in k86 by giving this cont back to you etc - and if ever needed (as seen in the NEXT war) supply support upon request)
I just wonder in time what your future alliance with Chaos will bring you and Im not looking for answers on a postcard or even comments here publicly - but is perhaps food for thought - which was my original point that everybody has latched onto and attempted to misconstrue.
We will fight both tribes for as long as we have to and ultimately its a game - but all of this plays into the format of the game and the decisions of a few can dictate a far larger number.
It was however backword on the original agreement with the same players involved (Me, Sylb, Dou, Drew, TAC, Ed & Wozz - obviously Tango & Fabs at the time) - just under a new name of FOE (barring the new additions of NEXT in each tribe who I also understand were quite vocal in their push towards warring with GOH). That is where the disappoint lies which if looked at perspectively Im sure can be understood as it is players like vaminos & basid who have made their voices heard who were not involved in the forming of our collective group which worked so well against NEXT and aspired to meeting that original goal.
It cannot be said in anyway that GOH did not do everything it could to accomodate FAIL / OWNED in regards to our diplomacy (withdrew from talks with tribes who we believed were a future target of FAIL / OWNED's - happily gave villages back when certain players did not grasp territory - accomodated FAIL / OWNED growth in k86 by giving this cont back to you etc - and if ever needed (as seen in the NEXT war) supply support upon request)
I just wonder in time what your future alliance with Chaos will bring you and Im not looking for answers on a postcard or even comments here publicly - but is perhaps food for thought - which was my original point that everybody has latched onto and attempted to misconstrue.
We will fight both tribes for as long as we have to and ultimately its a game - but all of this plays into the format of the game and the decisions of a few can dictate a far larger number.
chief ed
Guest
Totally!
When we were against a common enemy, we worked very well together, you will not find anyone who will deny that.
But times change, and so does direction.
None of us are able to read the future, so speculation will obviously be a very varied subject dependant on the individual's experiences
All i can say is that if there is anything to deal with, we will deal with it when the time arises.
stellro
Guest
As per usual - when the leadership of these tribes speak it makes for good reading. the above caused a wry smile btw.
Of course one view easy to assume (speculate) is that the alliance on FOE's part is one of convience to ensure they are not subjected from OU attacks in the future whilst they focus on the current key objectives, and it was put to a vote - so not a clear choice or overwhelming dependance / desire to remain allies with OU - but like you say - times change, and so does direction
chief ed
Guest
Of course one view easy to assume (speculate) is that the alliance on FOE's part is one of convience to ensure they are not subjected from OU attacks in the future whilst they focus on the current key objectives, and it was put to a vote - so not a clear choice or overwhelming dependance / desire to remain allies with OU - but like you say - times change, and so does direction
I think it's fair to say that when there are no more potential allies on your borders, you are forced to re-evaluate your alliances?
I fully expect GOH to put up a strong and worthy fight, so until such time as we are not at war with you, there is no need to further assess our diplomacy.
I also expect that CHAOS will still be at war with everyone else for this period, so our alliance with them is one that works equally well in both directions.
It was put to a vote...yes, because it is the voice of the tribe that decides the direction of the tribe. Why would we start a war that we did not expect our members to want to participate in? That is asking for trouble surely?
I did not say whether the result of the vote was unanimous or a close call, so as far as you are concerned, it is again open for your speculation
All i will say is that it was made clear that warring one meant cementing an alliance with the other, so you can take that to mean either people really wanted to war you, or they really wanted an alliance with OU and our war was the unfortunate outcome of peoples love for metty!
Last edited:
stellro
Guest
And alas - the reason for a Propeganda forum :icon_wink:
