Alright, it's come to my attention that you are MoA.

The times I asked you to play you agreed, but were just never available... but I would not want to play with you now seeing how misguided you've become.

I'm fairly confused as to what I've done to insult you, the fact of the matter is that simply being marked blue is not a round-long commitment. The NAP ran out, that means each side is free to attack the other... can you complain? Why not, complain away... but saying we are backstabbers just makes you sound like a sore loser and you haven't even lost yet.

It's a war game and someone who had no obligation to not fight you decided to fight you. Spending 80% of your time personally attacking me just makes you seem like a bad sport.

No, I'm not LoW. Minute of Angle at your service, and yes, I have turned you down twice.

My "rantings", as you call them, are quite accurate, hence your attempt to discredit them as inaccurate (I assume). I just find it hilarious that when someone betrays you, you go WAY overboard in trying to hammer their credibility. Guess the rules are different when it comes to you, huh? "Oh, no! It's OK for me to do it! I'm the great Kane!" Who knew that Kane was a backstabber? Say you asked about our diplomatic status, huh? Very honorable thing to do. We were marked as friendly. I don't know how you guys run things, but if an alliance is marked friendly by mL, they are off limits. Hence the fact that we didn't attack your relics the other day. I was worried then that f69 would try something, scanned the relics, and found that they had minimal units on them. As we had f69 marked as friendly, we never thought twice about attacking your relics. That would have been......GASP! Very f69-ish!

Shiz, I find it very sad that an alliance such as f69, an alliance with very good players, though crooked evidently, would stoop to such a low level. By your leaders own admission, mL was marked as friendly. TGO (the great one....you know, the one that is so full of himself), though we were marked as friendly took it upon himself to inquire as to our diplomatic status (still marked friendly, by the way), and then evidently the plan was set into motion. One thing I have never done in my BD career is to inquire into the 'diplomatic status' of a friendly alliance. I have questioned loyalty of allies, but I have never, EVER considered attacking an alliance marked as friendly. Each and every alliance that I have ever been involved with has always let any friendly alliance know of any change to their status, be it downgraded to neutral or hostile, prior to partaking in any campaign against them. And then, any change in status has not been without cause. Greed is not a good cause, though as I keep saying, I understand how you guys were blinded by the temptation. You're only human.........I'm just glad to be a part of an alliance that is capable of acting with honor by letting your relics pass with nary a thought when it would have been so easy to take them out.

Hiya, Apollo! Nah, I don't have to argue with Mo, Kane, or Shiz. Mo made my point for me.....They attacked a friendly alliance. That's bad!

P.S.: Apollo, are you the same Apollo that was with the Sith Care Bears a few rounds back? SCB did this exact same thing, remember? They attacked a friendly alliance for a relic and it came back to bite them. Rather funny, those good ol' days were! I remember taking out a third of SCB all by my lonesome.

Ahh, Kane has answered, so I must add a bit more. No, I never agreed, choosing rather to defer in case I ever did decide to play with you. I was out of pocket for one round, and I believe that you did very well that era (SIMP). Now, you won't have the opportunity to play with me, seeing how treacherous you have become. I refuse to play with somebody that espouses honor, yet displays none.

While you have always held one standard for enemies, and a separate standard for your own alliance, I never expected you to stoop to a level where you felt compelled to attack an alliance that you had marked as friendly. It is common knowledge that you do not attack a friendly alliance. Proper protocol would have had the situation go a bit like this:

Kane: Hey Mo. mL is marked as friendly. Can we attack them?
Mo: Not yet. Let me change them to neutral and let them know.
Kane: Ok.
Mo: Hey Redwurm. We're changing you guys to neutral.
Redwurm: Why?
Mo: Just because.
Redwurm: Ok.

Then, f69 could attack with nary a word from me about treachery. However, true colors were revealed, and now you wish to divert attention away from what happened, so you're here talking about how misguided I've become, how confused you are as to how you insulted me (you didn't, by the way), and how I'm a sore loser just because I'm a bit upset that an alliance of players that know better chooses to attack an alliance that they had marked as friendly?

As for being a bad sport, that's like the pot calling the kettle black. The whole BD community has put up with your famous tantrums for years now. I don't think that there are any good players out there that you haven't had a run-in with due to your diva-esque attitude. While you are a good player, you're not heads and shoulders above the rest of us as you seem to believe. This is just my opinion, and my reason for not making it a priority to play with you in rounds past.

I ask one simple question: If mL had taken f69's relics the other day, how much kane (pun intended) would f69 be on here raising? From past experience, it would be much more than has been raised by mL thus far.

MoA. yea, that was me, SCB =D


but i had nothing to do with the betrayal and voiced my outrage at attacking the alliance. TRE was it? I dont remember. But back on topic...

You're turning this into a soap opera, you did agree to play with me, but who cares... I certainly wouldn't play with you now, you say I wouldn't have the opportunity, I wouldn't want it. Making someone blue is not a round long obligation, it is simply a color to indicate whether you can attack them or not attack them, a message to the members.

The reason you go around making NAPs and alliances with people is so that there is no risk, you have the other person's word that they won't attack. We did this with mL, and then the NAP expired. Neither side was adamant about renewing it, so all diplomatic justification to cry "backstabber" when attacked went out the window. I've never backstabbed and don't intend to start now.

Name a time when I've backstabbed, because I've already explained how this isn't an instance of that. No diplomatic obligation, no backstab. It's really quite simple. If you can't come up with a single event of it, perhaps you should quite slandering me simply because you're bitter.

"While you have always held one standard for enemies, and a separate standard for your own alliance"... Oh really? Please elaborate, because that's simply not true.

I think here's why you're so bitter. You feel marking someone blue is a contractual obligation that requires you to inform the other party of any change in status.

THIS IS WRONG. The color is all the name implies, a color. It is only to be able to see at a glance whether something is friendly or hostile, there is a reason those colors can be changed at will. The only way this would be dishonorable would be if I attacked someone I agreed to not attack. Did this happen? NO. In fact, the day before I told your leader that an attack was possible, Mo also told your leader that an attack might occur (if I recall correctly). Just because he didn't pass this information off to you doesn't make this a backstab. Just because you say it's a backstab, does not make it so.

What I'm expecting is another post full of slander without backing up any of your claims, let's see if I'm right, or perhaps you'll surprise me with some evidence or at least accusations with a shred of believability.

Kane, you backstabbed ERE E4A?

Shion was going into vacation and you attacked him, despite our NAP still being fully intact for another 200 something ticks.

7/12 of the alliance was banned, yes, but the diplomatic ties still remained.

I'm sure you're going to justify that with "Oh, well you guys were banned", but that doesn't void the NAP. What you could have done was give a 24 hour warning and canceled the NAP.

You asked, I told.

I stopped reading after your first paragraph. You made my point. If blue "is simply a color to indicate whether you can attack an alliance, a message to the members", then why did you attack mL? According to Mo, we were marked as friendly by f69. I still have yet to find the screenshot showing as much, but it's rather moot since you guys admit that you attacked a friendly (read: BLUE) alliance. Also, if we were marked as neutral (or hostile for that matter), why would you have to check on our diplomatic status? Neutral is fair game for anybody, no questions asked.

I am most definitely not turning this into a soap opera. I'm calling you out, you don't like what I have to say, so you're trying everything within your power to cast suspicion away from you. I call it as I see it, you ain't gotta like it, but it is what it is.......

Also, I NEVER agreed to play with you. If I had wanted to play with you, don't you think I would have when you invited me to? Not that it matters, but for every single time you say "yes you did", I can say " no I didn't". The NO will win out, because it is quite obvious that I haven't played with you since TdM, under the leadership of Stinkypuff, and later Somi.

***Changed my mind and read your entire post. Hilarious stuff! You're pretty adept at trying to shed culpability. Always have been. Those of us that have been around for a while know how you are and that you are NEVER to blame in your own eyes. All one has to do is visit the old forums and check out some of your posts. I invite anybody that doubts this to go check it out.......

It is only slander if it is not true. My opinion of you cannot be considered slander. You being a backstabber is not slander: See the two quotes at the top of this post.

EDIT: Apollo, I remember now....Yourself and Luke of the Care Bear Armada were the only two that took the high road on that one! I had forgotten that part! Sorry about that!

I believe Kane and MoA should take their personal arguments outside this discussion.

Mo clearly stated that the NAP was over at tick 1500. If your alliance was aware of your diplomatic arbitration's the conversation should have gone something like this:

MoA: Hey Redwurm, is our NAP over with f69, it is past tick 1500?
Redwurm: Yes it has ended
MoA: Shall we inquire on an extension of the NAP as we plan to move our relic near them?
Redwurm: That might be wise
Redwurm: Mo, mL would like to have an extension of our NAP with your alliance
Mo: f69 no longer wants a NAP with mL


Bottom line. When a NAP expires there is no dishonor in attacking the alliance you had a NAP with and it is certainly not a back stab.

Their was no conversation.

Mo also clearly stated that mL was marked as friendly, which means that we were marked as BLUE. Kane clearly stated that BLUE is is simply a color that indicates whether or not an alliance can be attacked (I'm assuming that since BLUE = FRIENDLY, that even for f69, that means DON'T ATTACK).

Following simple logic here: mL was marked as friendly by f69, and had been for quite a while > mL allows 2 lightly armed relics belonging to a friendly alliance (f69) to pass within 12-15 ticks distance from 5K+ units without even a thought of attacking them > mL still marked as friendly by f69 > with an armament meant only to deter lower ranked alliances from attacking, mL's relic heads back out to sea so as to bring across more units > our "friend", f69 decides to take the relic even though we are marked as friendly.

That about sums it up, don't ya think, Shiz? I reiterate my question: If we had taken the two relics belonging to f69 the other day, what would you guys be on here complaining about? Methinks that you would be raising the same "friendly alliance" arguments. I also reiterate that I'm proud to be a member of an alliance that took the high road and didn't choose to stoop so low. There is no way you can polish up the fact that f69 attacked a friendly alliance. Once again, attack a neutral alliance? Yes. Attack a hostile alliance? Yes. Attack a friendly alliance? No. It is called backstabbing, regardless of how you try to spin it.

I normally don't resort to such crude analogies, but back when I was in the Army, I had a drill instructor that was fond of saying that you can't polish a turd. Regardless of how you look at it, that is a very true statement. It is what it is. All of these wordy responses are not necessary (even mine). All one has to do is read the quote from Mo about mL being a friendly alliance, and then the quote from Kane about what the blue outline means. Even someone with just a rudimentary understanding of the game can understand what happened. It's quite simple when you guys make my points for me!

I like that, Shiz......Bottom Line: f69 attacked an alliance that they had marked as friendly. Your leader admitted it, your HoF player admitted it, and you haven't disputed it. If you will attack someone you have marked as friendly just because you can, well.......it just doesn't look very good. If you will attack a friend, why would anybody want to be friendly with you? I have no clue with whom you guys are currently friendly, but if I were them, I would be looking at my relationship with you guys very hard. You've done it once, why not a second or third time? Precedent has been set.

Still hoping F49 come back.....