@*Tig* you're so funny.
In this world, James speaks for us in diplomacy. Maybe you should pick one person to do that. Then you won't have all different players making different deals and claiming they never got notified of stuff.
First time posting in this world. Yeay me! Couldn't help but check out how forum was doing outside of game. Have been vm lately. In response to this comment, I was the original diplomat in BM. I was to be the only one. However, some knew a few in your group, whereas I didn't. Likewise with one other team in the server, who is still the contact for that alliance. So, I passed the baton over to those people to do diplomacy with you and that other team accordingly. Life happens and others had to take over at different times with your team. The switching in dips is in part my fault as once your original contact was no longer able to do leadership, I went vm and another had to take over. It went from there. We do believe it is best to have one dip and one voice. With your team, the ball had to get passed around a bit. But, never hugely. You did dip with three people from BM as far as I know. After the first one stepped down, the other two were founders together. Doubtful much was missed between the two of them as they tag-teamed it.
It's a sad thing you didn't get to work with me, though.
Regarding the attitude to BM from enemy alliances. Have at it. Call us and accuse us of what you will. Lol. We have survived against all odds. Diplomacy and the fact that we proved we could survive is what kept us alive (the few carefully chosen teams we have worked with would not have worked with us if we hadn't proved we were an asset in the first place). We never expected to have members of Pandora join us. In fact, we intended to one day join them. Pandora falling changed things for us as suddenly we gained a lot more of O55 than we had intended on having, thus it changed our focus quite a bit, but it turned out for the better. We got quality team players for the most part.
Why have we survived? Luck has definitely been part of it. But, we also have many amazing players and great team players. We were able to work through our differences in leadership and keep the boat afloat. No explosive dramas to the team. Oh, there were dramas, but we were able to keep those dramas in leadership for the most part and that is due to the ability of those people to put the good of the team ahead of their own egos. No one insisted on being treated like a special snowflake. We kept our group small, which minimized our weaknesses. If we had recruited a lot of players, it would have made us weak as too many of those players would have been easy food. So, by staying small, we removed much of the inactive or semi-active food for enemy teams to take. Our base stayed close and dense. We played smart, not strong. It seems we have mostly succeeded. I have to give the team a thumbs up. A team of no more than 30 has remained in the top 10 without a secondary alliance, without changing names, or regrouping under another team, etc since the start of the world. It hasn't been an easy ride for our leadership or founders. But, they kept going and didn't give up.
TF was a team I respected from day one for the same reason. You may have changed your policy in recent weeks, but I'm thinking you felt squeezed into it due to how things were shaping up. I don't know your players personally, but I am sure if I were to play with them, I'd feel likewise about many of your team as I do about my own.
I am sure many will jump at the opportunity to say something scathing in reply to this. I won't reply to those, because there is always someone who has only scathing replies to offer.
Luckat