skwrel wrote:
Dude, you have no idea whast really going on do you?
Why does everyone seem to think I don't know what's going on?
skwrel wrote:
Kane didn't set the NAP up correctly and hes pissed about it. As for us for defending against you 2 twice and then taking back what we lost later means the whole sub thing is dead and over with. After that, we had no problems, you have no case. If SNN was continously attacking the sub and threatening its very own members then i understand, until i see proof of that let me know. Kane asked me to lay off you, so i did. You can thank him for saving your so called "life"
I agree with you to some extent. From my perspective, you guys attacked us so I said "What the heck" and then you guys told us we were the ones who attacked first. Both sides have some problem there. Us for attacking, if that's the case. I only have your word for it, since we don't have an outgoing radar that alerts us if our allied alliances are under attack
Anyway, then you have the problem that instead of waiting, as I did after an ally attacks, you attacked right back and escalated the problem. Notice that I didn't randomly assault NR or SNN after they attacked me but waited upwards of 12-14 ticks for the appropriate authorities to get online and confirm the situation.
skwrel wrote:
You want me to break out the MSN NAP, cause i will, it will be long and it will be ungodly difficult to read. To sum it up, there was only 5 provisions to that NAP, which you can find in the SNN vs GIFT thread.
That won't be necessary, and frankly it's easy to forge msn... I mean if you really want an NAP to hold then why not jump on the forums after discussing it in MSN and make a master post in the appropriate forum? That will give everyone a 100% undeniable time frame and terms will be perfectly defined instead of all this willy nilly, He-Said She-Said crap. I'll make sure to do it myself in the future.
skwrel wrote:
Your parable is correct, but fails to fit the situation that is layed before you. Come up with one that fits and let me know. Btw NR is not a sub or ally, your case there has no influence to SNN cause.
Thanks!. And perhaps it doesn't fit the entire situation. It's the general idea concerning ONLY the sub-assault aspect of this occurrence. Everyone on the other side of the argument didn't seem to see things the way I did. I was hoping to remedy that with a rather black and white comparison scenario.
Cosmin1980 was the one talking about NR, which is why I continued the topic
skwrel wrote:
As a sub of course your going to support the main, its your job. The whole reason of being a sub. The simple fact that you claim yourself of being a sub, pretty much makes you useless as an alliance. All you do is become the mains meatshield and puppet. Of cource they show you how to play and be kind to you, cause thats what they want; they want your trust. Why fight when they can have someone else do it for them. You can't do a whole lot, but enough to say pester another while the main goes for the kill. All in all your not helping yourself and you will never be #1 with the main around. Even if you finish #2, you still lost, which is why subs are truly unimportant more of an annoyance to the rest of the server.
You hurt my feelings... You seem to have a really bad opinion of subs

While I'm not yet the stellar player that make up a main alliance I feel I am a good team player for a Sub. You're right, they are teaching me things and I am learning, and in exchange I do things for them that they ask. What's your issue with this? Why are you so down on it? Would you rather everyone everywhere learn everything the hard way by remaining a conquer forever? That's pretty harsh and unrealistic

Might as well expect all the world to lay over and let you win outright.
I lead an alliance in another world and use the lessons learned here, there. I think the role as sub alliance participant is beneficial and I think I am, in fact, helping myself by being a part of the team.
skwrel wrote:
Why I signed one you might ask? Its really simple. I needed time.
....
Im playing strategically. Less GIFt has, more chance i have when the war was supose to break at tick 500. The provoking is part of the game, as long as i don't atatck GIFT directly im safe.
...
provoking was on both sides, making this agruement done and over with.
Then I'm mystified at why you made such a big deal about everything on the forums? You're essentially saying that the NAP was a stop gap for your own gain and you had every reason to expect it to fall apart and you were pushing as much as you could without breaking, to bother GIFT while it was in place.
Well aren't you a son of a ....
It's one thing to suspect such. It's the other way around to have the other guy come out and admit that he's purposefully playing dirty... Whatever dude.
skwrel wrote:
Like i said, this fight dredges way far back. We have our sides, neither wishes to budge. Me and Kane know what this is truly about. I don't expect you to understand.
Whatever dude. If you say so
