*wince* I don't particularly enjoy Flame wars and that was a rather bad one till the last two posts.... those were pretty funny actually. Cosmin and Kevin really outdid themselves in the last two responses. I could have done without everything leading up to that though.

anyway...

Stop being a tool Trevor. I don't think anyone minds you coming in with some calmly stated neutral opinions, but happily ignoring half the argument and posting childish "You got schooled" comments is rude. We have more than enough of that from the other side. Only a few of them are actually reasoning, the rest just hang out to make disparaging remarks on Kevin's morality and GIFT's trustworthiness.

Anyway, I dropped in here because I'm in a bit of a familiar situation on F4... and I thought... well let me explain. I think you all will find it has some interesting parallels with the topic here.

On F4 my alliance has an NAP with the Rank 1 alliance, WFA. Our alliances lie adjacent to one another on neighboring islands.
Our NAP is only with WFA, and the terms do not apply to any of their subs. The terms are simple... We do not move onto or attack their island and they return the favor.

Today WxFA, the primary WFA sub attacked my alliance. I messaged the WFA leader, SirSkipWith, to suss out his feelings on the matter and was curtly informed that if I took Justice into my own hands then I would void our NAP...

No, it's not the exact situation but it's pretty darn close! I think enough parallels can be drawn for it to be relevant.

I want to know what you would do in my situation. This is me in the other man's shoes. In E4 I am on the #1 alliance's side so I've been arguing that side and I see it the clearest. In F4 I'm the guy having to deal with the aggression and mistakes of the #1 alliance. This is your chance to tell me what you would do in my place. This is your chance to convince me that what you did was right...

Consider the following facts:
-WFA has 7 subs instead of the 1 that GIFT had and it still expects us to recognize and respect their subs, even if the subs attacked first.
-WFA admittedly caused the mistake by failing to update their friendlies list or updating any alliance leaders of the change after the NAP was signed some days ago.
-WFA will essentially be breaking the NAP they agreed upon if we retaliate upon the WxFA attacker for a problem they caused.
-I messaged the WFA leader 8 ticks BEFORE the attack landed yet he did not respond until 6 ticks AFTER the attack had landed. That's a 14 tick delay. A suspicious amount of inactivity for the currently ranked #6 player in the server.

So hit me guys! I'm sitting in your shoes on another server. All you have to do is successfully walk me through this new situation and show me how it compares to the old one, and I'll be on your side in this issue.

twighlight, please explain how i am being a tool. saying you got schooled is a way for me to tell someone that they are not making any sence. sorry but i didnt feel like copy pasting the 14 pages of convo of proof of the nap breaking into my post.

please shorten your story i have no interest in reading a novel about F4.

This topic was created over a photo of an attack that DID NOT HAPPEN Trevor. The attack was recalled entirely except for 4 squads which were massacred by SNN...
That means the NAP was not broken there! You don't go intentionally breaking an NAP with a screw up like that dude! That was just a mistake between alliances.

However.... the attack and it's resolution did bring up a lot of questions about why the NAP which we were discussing was in danger of breaking to begin with. Egos flared, and accusations were made, agendas revealed, and a lot of venom came out in the past 16 pages.

These issues came to light....

SNN wrongs
-SNN begins to attack GIFT ops close to their base (this is the original infraction that causes the alliances to bang heads and write up an NAP to begin with)
-SNN Sniped GIFT ops and conquers because they were angry that GIFT was doing the same to them or because they were just angry...
- After the G1FT member accidentally attacked, instead of waiting to hear back from anyone, SNN retaliates... complicating the problem further. After this point, SNN refuses to recognize G1FT as a part of their agreement with GIFT
-SNN leader admittedly hates Kevin and admittedly provokes the situation

GIFT wrongs
-A rogue GIFT member attacked, but retreated the main force when asked to, resulting in accidental destruction of 4 GIFT squads... A Win for SNN
-GIFT Sniped SNN ops and conquers because they were angry that SNN was doing the same thing to them?
-GIFT's Sub alliance G1FT, launches an attack that ends up on a friendly SNN outpost.

I think both sides have reasonable arguments for their sides as well as problems, and wrong doings aplenty. If you had participated in the events you would have known these facts. If you had Participated regularly in the discussion and debate here then you would have known these facts. Yet in your comments, Trevor, you brazenly ignore all these issues raised and cling to the original basic premise of the thread, which was resolved long, long ago....

Telling Kevin that nothing he said mattered and he should stop repeating the "Same old". and then finishing with "You just got schooled son" when you have totally ignored at least half of the preceding dialogue is insulting and really mostly just irritating...

That is why I called you a tool. Because you sounded like one, coming out of nowhere with an arrogant opinion based on nothing but hot air.

For those of us who can coherently follow the actual chain of events, It was nothing less than This very thread that resulted in the dissolution of the SNN-GIFT NAP, not any mere failed attack. Both sides in this couldn't help but defend themselves and everything would have been fine if SNN had not been so vehement about their righteous anger in the beginning. True, GIFT ended up doing exactly what the thread prophesied. Breaking the NAP... but if you consider the reason they broke it was this thread, well then it was SNN's fault for initiating hostilities wasn't it? I don't think I would trust anyone who said the things those guys were saying about us in the beginning.

Has any proof from the other side been shown? (gifts side)
Save for the "he did this, she did that blah blah blah" nonsense?

I think that's all we've got, unless you want to reference the original 2 posts on the beginnings of the stirrings


My original post about SNN attacking G1FT

The original SNN vs GIFT post

As we weren't the ones to start this discussion we had no reason to take screen shots when most of this was going down.

Twilight. Ok - here are the facts:

1. GIFT starts to invade SNN territory without asking permission.

2. SNN defends

3. SNN and GIFT create a NAP, not sniping and subs were NEVER agreed on in the NAP. (I can get proof if you don't believe me)

4. GIFT snipe OPs, snipe crystals and attack OPs 1 tick ahead of SNN for some odd reason..

5. G1FT attacks an SNN OP in Canada

6. Ping attacks SNN in Asia (Which she admitted that it was a backstab and publicly apologised)

7. GIFT backstabs SNN

Really, Kane should not have been so lazy to just not fully discuss terms, nothing to do with snipping was ever agreed on so his argument on that subject is automatically invalid.

FYI - Yes, I snipped Ping on OPs after other GIFT squads snipped me on 2 crystals, ready to kill 2 of my squads.

Nice facts, let's take a look...



No territory deal was written, SNN had no "territory" and pretending to control an area 15 ticks away from your hive is a bit ridiculous that early in the game.




You mean SNN attacks GIFT's OPs without talking to them.



Subs should have been assumed. Match ETA issue was certainly discussed, I brought it up twice in the talks. We never agreed not to go ahead of each other.



GIFT goes ahead of SNN when it can, that's always allowed. SNN purposely continued attacks into GIFT OPs even though we arrived first. SNN also purposely matches ETA to try and kill GIFT units and admits to doing this. Thereby breaking our NAP.



Either by a brand new member or was provoked, this issue was never brought to my attention. Good diplomacy from SNN.



Except it wasn't a backstab, nor was it ever called one by any of our players... because at that point SNN already violated the agreement. We apologized because we had hopes that SNN would negotiate and stop abusing our good nature, only to be met with an SNN leadership that wanted to avoid negotiating at all costs. This forced our hand to war.



Illogical conclusion from biased "facts". Nice try Ferr3t but you'll have to do better.

facepalm

I'm loosing respect for you ferret... These are merely the facts from your perspective. I was trying for a more wholistic approach which as a mod, you should be trying for as well!!! I should be trying to emulate you! not the other way around sir!
Now to respond...

1. I would believe that

2. I clearly state that SNN ATTACKED first and that GIFT ATTACKED during the NAP. I do not shrink from these facts. Yet you twist your words and claim your ATTACK on GIFT was in fact a defense even though SNN was the one launching the.... what is it again? AN ATTACK!!!

A Defense is when your units are sitting STILL and NOT MOVING. I fully understand that you may believe a good offense is the best defense, but considering we weren't bothering you yet it hardly falls under the category of a true Defense!!!

3. I DON'T CARE IF THE SUBS WERE NOT INCLUDED IN THE NAP!! I DON'T CARE IF SNIPING WAS NOT AGREED ON IN THE NAP. Those are obvious Givens that anyone in BD in my experience ANYWHERE will be pissed about if you do. They are basic rules of Battle Dawn etiquette that any NEWB like me learns in his first 2 weeks. In fact I think YOU taught me these rules So BACK OFF on these issues unless you want to totally change everything you and the other mods are teaching me in the Newb and Veteran questions section! Your complete lack of common sense in this thread is DRIVING ME CRAAAAZY

4. Already said this. And you justified yourself doing the same thing because it wasn't strictly prohibited in the point above. Hypocrisy...

5. Already said that too. You left out the bit about SNN attacking G1FT. And AGAIN, why does this even matter if we aren't included in the NAP? You can't have your cake and eat it too!

6. Indeed, but the backstab was quickly controlled by Kevin and she reversed her units, save 4 squads which you massacred at no cost to yourselves.

7. You left out the creation of this thread. My entire thesis hinged on that moment of creation and the early anger issued from SNN members.

But None of that is the point. The point is you can't seem to accept that GIFT ever had any reason for doing anything ever. Instead of replying to anything I said with reason, you came back with a superskewed SNN are Saints version of what I already said. I expected more out of a Mod.


And Ferr3t... please go back and read my first post on this page.... Then respond.... I think the situations are mirror images of one another.

Now even I am sick of reading all of this.

Twilight....you should be into politics. You are the biggest suck up I have ever seen.

To everyone who read this soap opera and is reading this...let's just stop talking and give Kevin what he deserves in E4...a defeat so humiliating that he will never return to the server again to mock and backstabb us all.

Beware the NAPs of Ovaltine Jenkins, as he shall show no honour

Disclaimer: I don't have anything to do with this conflict. I'm just bored.

Twilight...meh. I can't speak in an unbiased manner since I respect all of the mods with no exception and am friends with most of them, but...meh.

I think there's been a lot of finger pointing going on. SNN thinks that gift attacked first, gift thinks SNN attacked first. Since nobody has any real proof about this, you saying "I SAID AGAIN AND AGAIN SNN ATTACKED FIRST whine whine whine" holds no more stock than SNN saying gift attacked first. And calm down.


You know what's driving readers of this soap opera crazy? Your all caps. But anyways, depending on who you ask, sniping is fair game. I think deadman said somewhere that you really shouldn't be getting pissed at snipers, but really blame yourself for not sending enough squads. No, sniping isn't nice. But people aren't here to be nice as a primary goal, they're here to win. I'm going to guess ferret doesn't endorse sniping, and neither do I, but they're not grounds for war in a NAP unless clearly stated. Subs...eh, I don't think SNN should have used that argument about subs. Well known subs of alliances should be treated as a part of the alliance when discussing a nap.


Well, who started first? Then we can call whatever the other side did retaliation. But that just leads to more finger pointing with no real proof.


So even though that's a clear violation of NAP, your argument is "well, nobody was hurt so let's just forget about it"? I think that speaks for itself, but I'm going to continue just in case it doesn't. Say I backstab you, and my futile attempts were defended. Oh, erm, it was a mistake, I didn't really mean it, besides I lost some squads and you lost none so let's just forget about it.

7 is just more finger pointing.


I expected more from you. I didn't reallly, but it sounds cool. jkjk. I think that's complete bias and horse manure on your side, twilight. imho, ferret's points are just as legitimate as yours. You're coming with a superskewed Kevin is Saint version of what everybody already said. The facts are out already, from a (mostly) unbiased bystander's point of view, it can be argued either way. So obviously, the morality in this situation would defend on how you present the truth, and so it would be a 'superskewed' version of whichever side you're on of what everybody already said.

Remember, none of the above is to be taken too seriously.