H? and VALAR: who is mightier and who is right?

I'm not commenting or taking sides on this situation, other than to throw in my two cents about current VALAR leadership, as I recently experienced in a potentially sticky pickle. Without getting too much into the exact details, as they are irrelevant IMO, I made a mistake re: city placement that put me in a tough position relative to needing to ask a VALAR player to accommodate me. He (and his diplo representative) were swift, understanding, polite and incisive in their communication and action. The matter has been resolved, I have wiped the egg off my face, and I now have respect for the two players who acted so clearly and responsibly. Kudos!

HonoredMule wrote: Brids, if my sense of justice were half as perverted as you so frequently claim, you would have fallen victim to it long ago.  I remain quite content with how I have applied the term, if not with how it protects your freedom of irrationally biased expression.

Rill wrote: You were laying siege to a city of a player in their alliance.  They first contacted you, then took steps to remove the siege.  They did not whine, kvetch or attack you.  They sought resolution through diplomatic means -- which is more than you did -- and took a reasonable step to defend their interests. As you noted, the player was suspended -- there was no rush for you to siege the city, it wasn't going to do anything to hurt you.  People make mistakes, and I think in this instance your player made one.  Perhaps it could have been handled better on Valar's side as well, but this is the sort of situation where reasonable people back down and agree to put a minor incident behind them -- not to escalate it as you are doing with unreasonable demands for compensation. You sieged a city in their alliance.  You don't get to act all wounded that they dared to fight back.  Or does H? have some special right to not have anyone even resist attempts to take whatever it wants, without regard for proper diplomatic process? Just because you CAN doesn't mean you SHOULD.  This behavior is beneath you.

I realize I'm posting in vain, since most of you including the last poster haven't read the topic:

The suspended player had disputes with Malpherion going way back to when he was in Invictus: Invictus leadership neglected to support one of their members when this guy deliberately moved 3 squares from Malph's city.    Malph did nothing at that time, he waited until the player left the game.   He showed far more patience than I would have in the same situation.    Moving three squares from any player without permission is unacceptable to most alliances in this game.

You are incorrect Rill, while we admit Malph should have contacted Valar about his plan to raze the city before he sent his siege, Valar jumped the gun and sent armies to destroy the siege BEFORE they discussed the matter with the leadership at H?.  In fact, as soon as Malph received a message from Valar and forwarded it to me, I contacted the leadership at Valar.  Their actions have not reflected the desire to resolve this issue through diplomatic means; very similar to past dealings we've had with this alliance.   

H? will never apologize for supporting a player defending his sovereign area and given the posts you've made in this forum, you've defended your right to do the same for your members.  

Your blood money is on the way.  How much is your self respect worth?

	Count	To	Timing	Carrying	View
	1	KillerPoodle's [H?] Town: NE-Poodleville	1hr 39m 33s	29000000	View In Map

y'all know that this whole ruckus was about 1 city of a SUSPENDED account, right?