All I Am Saying Is Give Peace A Chance

Wow this reply format you used makes this quite hard to read and reply, but I'll try anyway :

Jenin wrote: I was ordered to attack a player and after I realized how small he was & that he was part of my neighbor Praetor Augustus' alliance, I asked to be excluded from TO action.

So .?. Do your actions reflect your whole side .?.

By that measure I broke the truce with my vCrow neighbor over this exact matter (him attacking small accounts) ... so should I then claim that everyone from my side had the same ideas like you do .?. I think that such an idea does not hold water ...

Plus, you said that you were ordered to attack a small player and asked to be excluded from it ... I find this honorable for you, but doesn't this imply that someone else carried on with those orders .?.

Jenin wrote: we also have a 3 city player called Aramis under attack right now by H? player(s?), so Idk to whom you are referring with regards to "high moral ground" - perhaps you might ASK what is going on so that the smell of blood doesn't turn us all into sharks...after all speech is a human gift, one i think we should not waste...try for facts, please - we don't need to inflame things with conjecture, ok?

Maybe, but I didn't claim that no small account was ever attacked by my side because I do not know that for a fact.

You, however, did falsely proclaim that.

Jenin wrote: Yes we have been now, so please don't be snarky over this

BANE was, and still is iirc, this game's only military force for hire ... since when they are traders I know not, but your own alliance profile page says :

"Current status:  Hired, under contract."  

Jenin wrote: then sandbagged when we had sold 75+% of our troops

Unless you meant that you were selling troops ... but that expands a bit the concept of this game's trading, wouldn't you say .?.

Jenin wrote: Deranzin, pray tell me why you are making such a connection about 'facts' such as that...this is NOT even about H?, it's about NC and anyone foolish enough to think that the nasty tactics some (not all) of their players got up to that was spoiling the fun of this game - that's all, plain & simple, please stop assuming you know what's going on here when clearly you don't.  and if you are going to make such a claim, show me proof at least... instead of the snarky little laughing face...

If you are not aware of the pre-war Hathaldir's post calling for revenge and having gathered many people with him for it, then this is not my fault.

Apart from that, if it was " about NC" I would like your explanation why NC are amongst the last people standing and others (even in map positions unrelated to NC) where attacked first and foremost, like TVM for example.

Also, calling people ignorant just because they happen to have some different facts from you, is a bit of a bad form imho ...

Jenin wrote: I do hope you come to recognize that this whole war is about supporting nastiness which we think needs to be stopped and that it got ignored until it built up to unacceptable levels...

So, you went to stop the "nastiness" by taking it to new unprecedented levels .?.  

I'll keep that in mind while my account is reduced to rubble  (I am not being ironic, I really find that comment amusing)

Ander wrote: That is not true Deranzin.   You caused 'more destruction'  after the surrender of Consone, not 'less'.  Instead of counting words and actions, just count the number of cities you razed during the war and after the surrender. You will understand who is bluffing. There is merit in the argument that the winner should not destroy her enemies completely. But its really up to the enemies you are fighting. When you come up with these kind of arguments, it only looks like you are insulting their intelligence.

That "destruction" though was part of the whole agreement, not "just because we could" ... this is an important difference.

Also, we talked about that thing in a previous topic and imho the current war proves that the prediction of those terms (a setback of two months) was indeed accurate, else all those former consone members wouldn't have had the troop levels they exhibit in this war.
 

Ander wrote: That "destruction" was part of the agreement, "just because you could" impose it - not because the other side considered it fair.

Fair or not, I will not be the judge of that ... what I care about is that the whole thing was exactly as it was claimed and it was indeed a general time setback for whole alliances and not destruction of particular accounts.

Ehm, Noki...  What would be more humilating?

Starry wrote: Again, for the upteenth time, during the Consone War  no one in Consone lost more than three cities TOTAL