DeletedUser
Guest
Forgive me if I am wrong, but I remember OTS' little alliance making up with @ against Infest. Making it not a gang-bang, just an even more embarrassing defeat for @...
DeletedUser
Guest
shahyd it seems even someone from your "long-term" alliance is tearing your tribe down:icon_surprised:
Deleted User - 4669627
Guest
^^ meh
haseo is a new recruit for hr, an enemy from my first world for me
he is always quick to razz me, regardless whether his posts have any legitimate basis, for example...
http://forum.tribalwars.net/showthread.php?258739-Lies-I-Have-Told
:icon_cry:
anyway, i will reply to chrissy then fallen, but i will also address the gang-bang accusation
haseo is a new recruit for hr, an enemy from my first world for me
he is always quick to razz me, regardless whether his posts have any legitimate basis, for example...
http://forum.tribalwars.net/showthread.php?258739-Lies-I-Have-Told
:icon_cry:
anyway, i will reply to chrissy then fallen, but i will also address the gang-bang accusation
Deleted User - 4669627
Guest
hugging is more about diplomacy than recruiting, if we had diplomacy with a number of tribes, or if we were family, then you could make the argument that we are hugging, though it would be an obvious example of the pot calling the kettle black
seems what you are actually accusing us of is mass-recruiting?
obviously though, there are a great many problems with your accusation
first problem, you use quotes, but seem not to be quoting anybody at all, let alone me? if you want to quote something, then quote it mate, else it makes you look dishonest :icon_wink:
i know you do not wish to misrepresent things, so i will quote me
infest was 10 mates bordering 3 different family tribes, each of the main tribes being a top 5 tribe
if i recruited all 10 of them :icon_eek: there still would have been no mass-recruiting or hugging, in fact, they would have been the least huggy recruits possible
but it was never going to be all 10 of them, as you well know :icon_rolleyes:
how many did it say in our (yours and mine) in-game mail? 6 recruits? should i quote that?
between the 3 families you collectively had hundreds (literally) of western mates at the time, we had exactly zero and planned to recruit 6 who were nowhere near us and that somehow makes us huggy mass-recruiters?
| Name: | @ITUDE |
|---|---|
| Created: | 2012-08-01 17:03:19 |
| Tribe Changes: | 344 |
|---|
| Name: | Multiple Wargasms |
|---|---|
| Created: | 2012-08-03 02:03:12 |
| Tribe Changes: | 223 |
|---|
~@~ was created 1.5 days before us and you have 50% more tribe changes than us without even counting the 2 incarnations of ~@2~
mass-recruiting and hugging are sort of relative, if you had 100 tribe changes, your accusation that we mass-recruited would be much stronger, not from anything we did, but because of what you did
for the record, only a few long-lasting tribes have set the bar for us, if you divide tribe changes by days since creation, you would see hr has made it very hard for us to be the least recruiting tribe of W64
it is not entirely chance that we are such good allies :icon_wink:
everybody has had a lot of inactivity since the attack breaks, we are no exception, except maybe in our ability to actually internal our inactives
do we need to replace them? probably not, but...
1. they do make room for a few more players to have a chance to win w64
2. not every player who deserves a chance to win is in the east
3. if we did not recruit anybody in the west, how would any western player have any chance of winning?
4. ~@~ began in the east yet your "whole tribe" is west, remind me how that happened? mass-recruiting?
which begs the question, since you recruited so many western players...
why do you hate all the players of the west and wish to see not a single one of them get a chance to win w64?
first off, idc if a single mate from infest ever joins ~MW~, ending our relations with ~@~ is a gold mine in and of itself
the only problem is we cannot eat all the food fast enough :icon_razz: (seriously though)
further, i see a few more mates from ~@~ who might deserve a chance to join ~MW~
believe me i see the irony of not recruiting infest after our diplomacy ended, i see it perfectly clear, but from my perspective the joke is entirely on you mate
in regards to it being MY agreement...
i then forwarded you this mail...
which you immediately read without ever saying "wait, we seem to have a misunderstanding here"
idc that you did not honor OUR agreement, it worked out very well for us that you did not
for that reason, YOU probably should have clarified any possible (let alone completely obvious) misunderstanding?
considering we never planned to end diplomacy, let alone attack you or recruit from you, until after you informed us you would keep attacking our recruits, how does it become at all clear that we intended to attack you and recruit your mates?
if anything, it is clear that we were looking past ~@~ territory for recruits a world away from us (Infest) rather than your own mates who were much closer to us
if anything, it is clear that we were relying on our diplomacy with ~@~ to make recruiting the mates from Infest possible, not planning to end it
it is clear to everybody that Ex was our target, obviously not ~@~
now i have replied to all your issues directed towards me personally, but soon i will reply to some other issues you have raised in discussion with others, loyalty for example, activity of our targets for example
seems you are misrepresenting a lot of things, a shame really
despite everything that has happened, you are well aware that i had considerable respect for you personally when our diplomacy ended and we last spoke, it is a shame to see you degrade yourself now
chrissy24
Guest
well .. yet another load of smoke and mirrors.
"hugging is more about diplomacy" than recruiting. nice play on words but also palpably nonsense. you COULD have fought your way through k85 but chose to "diplomacy" your way through there by "diplomacying" a few key members so you could then attack the rest with assured success.but even then to make sure you offer ex a ceasefire! now a truly good leader of a great tribe takes risks and fights fair as opposed to making absolute certain. but thats not all! to make it even more of a certanty you try to "diplomacy" most of pur k73 and probaly charmed and skadida as well.
the INFEST thing - well we know the intention there - open another front against Ex because yopu arent making the desired progress on the one yopu already have. oh .. and at the same time use the whole affair as an excuse to attack us without looking the "bad guy"
i'll be cheering on from the sidelines when your seen for the sham you are. great tribe? dont think so - at best smart game play but the great leaders on world i have played won by taking risks and valuing integrity above the victory.
"hugging is more about diplomacy" than recruiting. nice play on words but also palpably nonsense. you COULD have fought your way through k85 but chose to "diplomacy" your way through there by "diplomacying" a few key members so you could then attack the rest with assured success.but even then to make sure you offer ex a ceasefire! now a truly good leader of a great tribe takes risks and fights fair as opposed to making absolute certain. but thats not all! to make it even more of a certanty you try to "diplomacy" most of pur k73 and probaly charmed and skadida as well.
the INFEST thing - well we know the intention there - open another front against Ex because yopu arent making the desired progress on the one yopu already have. oh .. and at the same time use the whole affair as an excuse to attack us without looking the "bad guy"
i'll be cheering on from the sidelines when your seen for the sham you are. great tribe? dont think so - at best smart game play but the great leaders on world i have played won by taking risks and valuing integrity above the victory.
DeletedUser
Guest
I wouldn't call giving the key players in a tribe you're about to war the chance to join you hugging. A good leader takes every advantage they can get, when planning a war, whether they need it or not. His recruitment was completely fair, he refused to recruit any @ members unless he could not find a way to continue the NAP. He then waited until the 48h grace period was up before sending us invites.
chrissy24
Guest
slurp, slurp, kiss, kiss. pass me the syrup
he's claiming true greatness :icon_rolleyes:
true greatness might go slightly beyond sticking to the rules and being fair- he could have y'know warred you.
but your right in one respect - he at least does what is best for his tribe (though he makes ridiculous claims for it)
you only do what you do for yourself.
jog on jcl
he's claiming true greatness :icon_rolleyes:
true greatness might go slightly beyond sticking to the rules and being fair- he could have y'know warred you.
but your right in one respect - he at least does what is best for his tribe (though he makes ridiculous claims for it)
you only do what you do for yourself.
jog on jcl
DeletedUser
Guest
I disagree. A truly great (not good) leader of a great tribe can distinguish the appropriate times to play their hand in such a way that maximizes the probability of success for whatever they are trying to accomplish at a given stage of the world. The best leaders can do this while fighting fair, and not resorting to dishonorable tactics. You can be absolutely certain of your success while still fighting fair. One only needs to look at what A-4ZL! did on world 55 to see that in action.
Does it not occur to you that if you had kept your side of the agreement concerning handling Infest, the entire plan of which ants was VERY open with you about, ~@~ and ~MW~ would still have an NAP? Complaining that it was a setup to have an excuse to attack you is ridiculous. He told you his plan. He told you how to make it work. You agreed it could be done. Your tribe did not do what you agreed was going to happen. ~MW~ took it as disrespect of the diplomatic agreements. When an NAP blatantly disregards an agreement like that, then the NAP agreement as a whole becomes unstable, or untenable. That causes one or both parties to be unhappy with it and calling for an end to relations.
chrissy24
Guest
the INFEST thing was a smokescreen.
admit it- you were planning to go against us for months. we knew it and you knew that we knew it. which is why we were as a tribe fairly reluctant to fully engage ex. truth is if you were half the tribe you claim to be then we would have been gone long ago. but you arent half the tribe you claim to be and ,by all your newbies reckoning, you allowed a "useless" tribe to exist and share k's with you "greats" for what - 9 months? very generous of you.
truth is - without players who are eager to play dirty politics and cheat the tribe they are in by hopping into yours you're pretty shoddy.
admit it- you were planning to go against us for months. we knew it and you knew that we knew it. which is why we were as a tribe fairly reluctant to fully engage ex. truth is if you were half the tribe you claim to be then we would have been gone long ago. but you arent half the tribe you claim to be and ,by all your newbies reckoning, you allowed a "useless" tribe to exist and share k's with you "greats" for what - 9 months? very generous of you.
truth is - without players who are eager to play dirty politics and cheat the tribe they are in by hopping into yours you're pretty shoddy.
Last edited:
chrissy24
Guest
further, i see a few more mates from ~@~ who might deserve a chance to join ~MW~
need i say more.
those will be the ones who have null point oda against you in your current hugging oops "diplomacy" oops recruitment war
need i say more.
those will be the ones who have null point oda against you in your current hugging oops "diplomacy" oops recruitment war
DeletedUser
Guest
Complete rubbish, few would have joined in had you posted a mandatory op. @ is made up of several groups of players, that work together for the ends of their group. The K84 group (ex AW i believe) is one of those, and we decided that MW was the best place to end the world in. End of.
chrissy24
Guest
where,s the organ grinder?:icon_smile:
thats my point - when exactly did this "paul on the road to dasmascus moment" occur? probably before your time.
bit and his acolytes were probably talking (kissing ass) with allstarjinn and some others for months
stayed around long enough to bag what you could.
bit still got ambitions to lead?
jog on jcl
llanowar
Guest
I'm trying to figure out if you were intentionally quoting "Princess Bride" here or not?
They knew that you knew that they knew that you knew that they knew. Well then WTF would the original point of the NAP have been for your side?
Why wouldn't you have secretly messaged Ex and launched a suprise offensive on a tribe you claim you "KNEW" was going to come after you. Sounds to me like you are looking back at the past and realizing you allowed a larger tribe access into your areas with no threat of retaliation and then when they began licking their lips at the sight of your unmolested villages you decided to start screaming "Cheater and Scumbag" at them because they hurt your feelings by accepting the inevitable fact that eventually only 1 tribe wins. No matter how many NAP's you have in place Eventually 1 tribe has to have it all.
chrissy24
Guest
wont be MW then - gap on the HR is too big.
and where have i screamed "cheater and scumbag":icon_rolleyes:
you know nowt - off you pop.
as i am now
forgot briefly how the clique on here massage each others egos
llanowar
Guest
Pardon me. You called some of the people that JOINED them cheats. Thus making their tribe (or at least part of them) cheats.
chrissy24
Guest
ok - once more for the hard of hearing
i didnt call anyone "cheats"
i claim with some justification that players who derive benefits from being in one tribe while waiting their opportunity to join another "cheat" the tribe they are in
there's a difference- perhaps a little subtle for some but a difference nevertheless
DeletedUser
Guest
Deleted User - 4669627
Guest
fallen, i will reply to you next time i have a minute
llanowar, good to see you, remember sMExy! :icon_cool:
(sorry i couldn't stick around btw, w58 was never meant to be a serious world for me)
1. we told you our recruitment plans
2. we offered to double the length of the cancellation period
3. we offered a shared planner
we agreed to a ceasefire between Infest and ~@~
then i got reports of continued attacks against Infest and this was your reply...
i am done replying to your nonsense, type all the nonsense you want, just do not expect anybody to take you seriously
obviously, our diplomacy benefited ~@~ more than ~MW~ (the proof is in all that has happened since)
obviously, we planned to continue our diplomacy, even improve it
obviously, you attacked players you KNEW we were recruiting despite our warning AND a ceasefire
obviously, that is what changed our diplomacy
not only do you and i know it, but the whole W64 knows it, even people who do not play this world know it
you had better relations than you had any legitimate reason to even dream of
we were forthcoming, we were transparent, we were true to every word we ever spoke, we honored our agreements, you had plenty to eat, we did not ask you to attack anybody, we did not ask you for support, we did not try to recruit your mates, we did not noble in k's you dominated
we were damn good to you, better than you had any legitimate reason to expect us to be, yet still you talk trash about us and make up obvious lies?
all good mate, tbh you were the one person in W64 i regretted would need to be rimmed, but now i do not mind at all
cheers and good bye
llanowar, good to see you, remember sMExy! :icon_cool:
(sorry i couldn't stick around btw, w58 was never meant to be a serious world for me)
now you are being flat out insane :icon_rolleyes:
1. we told you our recruitment plans
2. we offered to double the length of the cancellation period
3. we offered a shared planner
when i told you our recruitment plans i also told you any attacks against our recruits would be considered attacks against ~MW~
we agreed to a ceasefire between Infest and ~@~
then i got reports of continued attacks against Infest and this was your reply...
THEN we notified you that JUST AS WE HAD WARNED YOU, any attacks against our recruits would be the end of our diplomacy with ~@~
i am done replying to your nonsense, type all the nonsense you want, just do not expect anybody to take you seriously
obviously, our diplomacy benefited ~@~ more than ~MW~ (the proof is in all that has happened since)
obviously, we planned to continue our diplomacy, even improve it
obviously, you attacked players you KNEW we were recruiting despite our warning AND a ceasefire
obviously, that is what changed our diplomacy
not only do you and i know it, but the whole W64 knows it, even people who do not play this world know it
you had better relations than you had any legitimate reason to even dream of
we were forthcoming, we were transparent, we were true to every word we ever spoke, we honored our agreements, you had plenty to eat, we did not ask you to attack anybody, we did not ask you for support, we did not try to recruit your mates, we did not noble in k's you dominated
we were damn good to you, better than you had any legitimate reason to expect us to be, yet still you talk trash about us and make up obvious lies?
all good mate, tbh you were the one person in W64 i regretted would need to be rimmed, but now i do not mind at all
cheers and good bye
chrissy24
Guest
yeah as i say the perfect excuse. you offered to extend the the cancellation notice to 96 hours. big deal. probably to give you a bit longer to talk to your recruits and make the planned expansion more of a certainty. i dont "blame" you. unfortunately there were more than enough willing to take your shilling- that, it seems, is what TW has become.. However, i'm pleased to say i personally kept to the principles Gorn and Rf established the tribe on.
when you making your next "recruitments" btw.? who are the "worthy" ones?
as if i dont know..
cheers and good bye
when you making your next "recruitments" btw.? who are the "worthy" ones?
as if i dont know..
cheers and good bye
Deleted User - 4669627
Guest
^^
i stand corrected, i will reply to that
yes, you did keep to the principles ~@~ was founded on
~@~ and the original ~@2~ were 90+ mates all in an area the size of 1 K
anybody active enough to ask for an invite, then active enough to accept it within days of being sent, could join
if you did not join, you faced 90 accounts all in an area the size of 1 K
if you did join, you starved
were you around when the players were posting to the forum saying "what are we supposed to eat, everybody is family or ally"
your duke replied "that is a good thing, you should noble 400 point barbs like me"
you recall that chrissy? were you around back then? there are still some people who were and who recall that.
it is always tricky to tell who is a traitor, it is compounded by the fact that many tribes and many people are not worthy of loyalty
you stayed true to those barely active mates, i respect you for that
you also claimed you were trying to win, despite the obvious conflict
most of your mates were not even trying to PLAY
some of your mates were trying to play
somebody mentioned above that ~@~ was different groups, you had at least 2 groups of players
the ones who were trying to play were in agreement with the exception of 3 of you
you were true to the barely active mates, CastorZ just wanted to lead apparently, Ottello was leading
you were committed to the players who were not committed to the game
castorz and ottello were committed to themselves
everybody else was in agreement and committed to their closest mates who showed some sign of commitment to the game
you were true to ~@~, good for you, i respect that
but ~@~ was not a tribe worth being loyal to
most of your mates were not even trying to play
why should your mates who were trying to play be loyal to those not even trying to play?
why should they be loyal to somebody who just wants to play leader?
why should they be loyal to a tribe founded on mass-recruiting, hugging, and barb-nobling?
they should be loyal cuz they are in areas taken over by ~@~?
is that why they were not traitors when they joined you?
if everybody who changes tribes is a traitor, there are probably less than a dozen players in all of W64 who are not traitors
you are one who never changed tribes? respect again for that
maybe ~@~ has a couple more like you, ~MW~ has the rest
but obviously not all those who change tribes are traitors
your mates who were committed to playig, why should i not give them the chance for the time and effort they have invested and continued to invest to come to something other than an inevitable loss?
how does that make me a bad guy?
how does it make them bad guys for wanting to play with other players who are at least trying to play?
maybe you personally were worth being loyal to, you were my contact person in ~@~, you sit everybody, you are the one bearing the ~@~ flag in the public forums
if all of ~@~ were like you, nobody would leave and you might have had a chance at winning this world
but most of ~@~ was not even trying to play
i stand corrected, i will reply to that
yes, you did keep to the principles ~@~ was founded on
~@~ and the original ~@2~ were 90+ mates all in an area the size of 1 K
anybody active enough to ask for an invite, then active enough to accept it within days of being sent, could join
if you did not join, you faced 90 accounts all in an area the size of 1 K
if you did join, you starved
were you around when the players were posting to the forum saying "what are we supposed to eat, everybody is family or ally"
your duke replied "that is a good thing, you should noble 400 point barbs like me"
you recall that chrissy? were you around back then? there are still some people who were and who recall that.
it is always tricky to tell who is a traitor, it is compounded by the fact that many tribes and many people are not worthy of loyalty
you stayed true to those barely active mates, i respect you for that
you also claimed you were trying to win, despite the obvious conflict
most of your mates were not even trying to PLAY
some of your mates were trying to play
somebody mentioned above that ~@~ was different groups, you had at least 2 groups of players
the ones who were trying to play were in agreement with the exception of 3 of you
you were true to the barely active mates, CastorZ just wanted to lead apparently, Ottello was leading
you were committed to the players who were not committed to the game
castorz and ottello were committed to themselves
everybody else was in agreement and committed to their closest mates who showed some sign of commitment to the game
you were true to ~@~, good for you, i respect that
but ~@~ was not a tribe worth being loyal to
most of your mates were not even trying to play
why should your mates who were trying to play be loyal to those not even trying to play?
why should they be loyal to somebody who just wants to play leader?
why should they be loyal to a tribe founded on mass-recruiting, hugging, and barb-nobling?
they should be loyal cuz they are in areas taken over by ~@~?
is that why they were not traitors when they joined you?
if everybody who changes tribes is a traitor, there are probably less than a dozen players in all of W64 who are not traitors
you are one who never changed tribes? respect again for that
maybe ~@~ has a couple more like you, ~MW~ has the rest
but obviously not all those who change tribes are traitors
your mates who were committed to playig, why should i not give them the chance for the time and effort they have invested and continued to invest to come to something other than an inevitable loss?
how does that make me a bad guy?
how does it make them bad guys for wanting to play with other players who are at least trying to play?
maybe you personally were worth being loyal to, you were my contact person in ~@~, you sit everybody, you are the one bearing the ~@~ flag in the public forums
if all of ~@~ were like you, nobody would leave and you might have had a chance at winning this world
but most of ~@~ was not even trying to play
