? What the *my own censor! Bet you don't have it! I pogrammed it!* is that for you *my own censor! Bet you don't have it! I pogrammed it!* Um are you gay?

Wait, what?

I'm just straight confused now.

Seriously, this is the only thing that matters. The Non Aggressive Pact ended at tick 1500, this means that we can act Aggressively at any point after tick 1500... It was after tick 2800... I think that was ample time to either attempt to renew your NAP and/or, prepare for aggressive actions. There really is nothing to complain about. God forbid a war game actually has a few battles in it...

MoA seems to be describing himself...

Huffing and puffing? Avoiding points? Pretending that anything you say is fact?

Am I missing something here? This seems a much more apt description of yourself than I, as I have answered your points while you dance around mine. Have a good day, be sore on your own time.

I think you guys should just have a dance off.

*unh tss unh tss unh tss*

Get it on ladies, get it on.

**-----------------**

On topic though, this whole situation is kind of pathetic...

Should mL have officially renewed the NAP? Yeah.

Should f69 have told mL that they were marked friendly (no matter what else was said) then expected it to be taken as avoidance of a war instead of a NAP? No. That is just misleading and, yes, quite low.

As for the relic itself, that was pretty irresponsible of both parties... mL shouldn't have given f69 the opportunity to take the relic... but f69 was playing that part quite backhandedly as well.

I understand why it was done, and I understand the positions of both parties, I just think that this situation shouldn't have happened.

Ehh, my 2 cents.

Marking an alliance friendly does not mean anything except at that particular time you have decided not to attack that alliance. It doesn't mean there is a NAP, it doesn't mean you are allies. It is just a way to separate the OPS and colonies of things you do not want to attack at that time. No other alliance need know who have marked friendly, neutral, or hostile... They need a NAP, alliance, etc....
Something binding, not ask someone in the alliance,
mL member "hey, is mL marked friendly for you"
F69 member "yeah"

This doesn't mean anything...

So you guys declared all out war? Heaven forbid that mL had attacked f69 without a formal declaration. Again, how loudly would you guys be screaming foul then?....lol



Classic Kane response. All huff, no substance. Decide for yourself people. Anything here?




Red, I'd lose for sure. I can't dance around the issue as well as he can!



No, it means a lot. Always has, including to some of your members in the past. Oh how the times have changed......

Bottom line: mL declined to go against it's ethics and attack two lightly defended relics of an alliance that was marked as friendly the day before f69 decided that they had no such ethical bonds and attacked another lightly armed relic of an alliance that they had marked as friendly. mL calls f69 out about it, f69 beats around the bush, says it's ok to attack someone that you have marked as friendly, and then tries to discredit us/me as being sore, angry, etc......Am I miffed that f69 stooped so low as to attack an alliance that they had marked friendly up until they attacked for the relic? You betcha! You would think that Hall of Fame caliber players would be above such juvenile antics. This is kinda like a couple of kids on the playground, playing all nice with each other. Then, out of the blue, one of the kids pops the other in the nose, snatches his marble and runs off. What's right about that? Good parents teach against this type of behavior.

When an alliance is told that they are marked friendly, that is almost akin to saying there is a NAP with them. When alliance A tells alliance B (doesn't matter who says it within the alliances, each member still represents the whole) that they have alliance B marked friendly, it is not unlikely for alliance B to believe that there is no intent for alliance A to attack them.

In other words, it is extremely misleading. That is why I said:
"That is just misleading and, yes, quite low."

I never once said it was a lie, I never said it meant something.

Also, I am no stranger to marking an alliance as friendly in order to tell my members not to attack them... my problem is that the other alliance was told about that mark in a way that could be (and was) mistaken as meaning something.

Once again, it is misleading, and low. I don't care what you say about it, I understand why you did it, but there is absolutely no doubt about it... low blow.

If only this game had a referee... it could be like boxing...

In my opinion you have it all wrong. Marking someone friendly or hostile is a game mechanic to assist your alliance. The reason that no other alliances see how you have it marked is because it is not for them. I've been in an alliance where we have marked an Alliance we had a NAP with hostile in the last 100 ticks. Because we wanted their OPs and infrastructure to be marked red so it was easy to pinpoint where we want to focus our attack when the NAP was over. It's a game mechanic, it doesn't have anything to do with your relationships with other alliances. Of course we didn't attack in thos 100 ticks, but when the NAP was over, we were ready to go to war right away because of changing them to hostile earlier...

Fact is there was no NAP. We even warned mL earlier not to fly their relics near our hive... So how is it a low blow when we warn them not to do it, have no NAP with them, so we take it. It's not low, it's not backstabbing. It is an alliance taking advantage of a sucker...

Now the real fact is the diplomacy that mL is trying to do here. They are trying to make F69 sound like a bunch of dishonorable players and backstabbers. Why do this, so they can get sympathy and support from other alliances, because they know they don't have the muscle to take us on alone...