DeletedUser
Guest
I like turtles.
DeletedUser5061
Guest
Only a "not very clever" person would think sending support to assist a conquest isn't considered aggression, so I won't debating on you on this one. From what I understand we can't speak about "MODS" in this game a certain without getting in trouble so I will try to avoid any further involvement in this thread.
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser
Guest
I have to agree to some degree that 'supporting' alone is not seen as an aggressive act, but I don't see why anyone would want to take part in helping a member (any member) take down someone in their own alliance. For one, it's just plain dirty. You join an Alliance to protect each other and recieve help and support. We don't turn around and attack each other, that's not what Alliances are for. Dobby, you attacked Fingolfin. If it had only been you alone then it would have been an internal problem but the fact of the matter is that you had help. That's the main problem here. It doesn't matter if (whatever his name is) was a friend of yours, he should have had enough respect for his own alliance to know better than to help you take-over someone else's, especially since that person was in an Alliance that had a Non-agression pact with his. I do not neccessarily think the whole Delicatessen alliance should suffer because of one member's imprudence, but if they have the desire to keep that member and do nothing to reprimand them...well then I believe we have full rights to end the Pact.
DeletedUser
Guest
Dobby, please stop trying to play at technicalities with the terms of the NAP when you know as well as anybody that supporting a conquest against a NAP member is ridiculous... (not to mention them then taking you as a member afterward)
DeletedUser
Guest
He can be connected to the Deli as much as he wants, but as far as I'm concerned the only people who are involved in this problem is Dobby, (the guy who helped form Deli) and the leaders of the alliances. If Deli does indeed invite Dobby into their alliance then that is (to be frank) a dumb@$$ idea and move on their part. They'd be harboring a fugitive and I'm sure we can only imagine how well that'd turn out...
DeletedUser
Guest
okay all fighting boys and girls, I would like to give my vision too 
What happened was not nice but as nobody from the Deli acually attacked a BS-member (what the deal is if you make a NAP) there can be no discussion on that subject.
Was it nice what happened? No ofcourse not, but it's also not nice to have a nap-deal with BS, so things aren't always nice, maybe that is why this is a tactical wargame
What happened was not nice but as nobody from the Deli acually attacked a BS-member (what the deal is if you make a NAP) there can be no discussion on that subject.
Was it nice what happened? No ofcourse not, but it's also not nice to have a nap-deal with BS, so things aren't always nice, maybe that is why this is a tactical wargame
DeletedUser
Guest
Haha go away DuPatron Nobody wants you here.
Nobody wants you here.DeletedUser
Guest
This does seem a bit treacherous but this is a war game is it not, involving tactics and such.
This is why NAP's need to have a clear set rules and conditions such as:
"Neither alliance will attack/support against the other alliances troops/ships etc". Even if you think a clause isnt necessary it may be useful at some point.
However I do think that BS attacking an alliance who had close relations with the deli is short sighted and ignorant of their NAP partners wishes or without even discussing it. If close communication is never kept events like this will always happen.
This is why NAP's need to have a clear set rules and conditions such as:
"Neither alliance will attack/support against the other alliances troops/ships etc". Even if you think a clause isnt necessary it may be useful at some point.
However I do think that BS attacking an alliance who had close relations with the deli is short sighted and ignorant of their NAP partners wishes or without even discussing it. If close communication is never kept events like this will always happen.
DeletedUser
Guest
I'm finding Dobby's explanation rather idiotic.
By his definition of the matter all i would need to do is leave BS, attempt a conquest of a deli city then have BS support my CS, then after the conquest is completed i return as a member.
By his definition and explanation of a NAP, BS has not broken the NAP while gaining a deli city.
@Dobby, i'm just your average grepo player... and i don't care who you are.
By his definition of the matter all i would need to do is leave BS, attempt a conquest of a deli city then have BS support my CS, then after the conquest is completed i return as a member.
By his definition and explanation of a NAP, BS has not broken the NAP while gaining a deli city.
@Dobby, i'm just your average grepo player... and i don't care who you are.
DeletedUser
Guest
I have to agree with Dobby on this one.
Kad didn't attack, and since I have seen no proof that anyone else from Deli did, and since both Dobby and Kad are experienced players with much time spent in the same alliances, it's safe enough to say, from my point of view, that Kad was acting as a friend to Dobby, and not as an offensive move from Deli.
Kad didn't attack, and since I have seen no proof that anyone else from Deli did, and since both Dobby and Kad are experienced players with much time spent in the same alliances, it's safe enough to say, from my point of view, that Kad was acting as a friend to Dobby, and not as an offensive move from Deli.
DeletedUser
Guest
the point is not whether he was acting as a friend, more that he was supporting a hostile act against BS. i don't see how the experience of the players counts in their favour on that one...
DeletedUser
Guest
I meant they had worked together, and that Kads actions justify only himself and Dobby to be subjected to the consequences, unless Deli choose to defend them.
DeletedUser
Guest
DeletedUser
Guest
That's what I said. Though I see it as Kads not having enough respect for his own alliance to avoid interferring in an act that could be interpreted as aggressive and ruin a NAP
DeletedUser
Guest
DeletedUser
Guest
He is not with us if you haven't noticed. He explained to me that he had bout of 3 speed fever (tiredness from being online too much) and sent a CS to the village next to the one he had actually claimed. He gave me reason to believe he had tried to sort out the situation with -BS- before asking for "personal help". I believe this is a fair reflection, and as far as I am aware no other Deli members supported him. I expect he has alot of PA's with his reputation though.
DeletedUser7160
Guest
I agree. I would even be more likely to believe that he clicked on the wrong city by mistake and by the time he realized it, it was too late. Still wouldn't explain the tactic though, since you can simply warn fingolfin so he can dodge, and then you recall your colony ship once it arrives, thus ending the siege.
Certainly no need to call in for help if it was a mistaken click.
That is, if that were even the case. Dobby however, seems entrenched in his stance that technically he didn't do anything wrong. Let's take the Deli entirely out of this equation and presume you acted entirely on your own: you were still trying to conquer an alliance mate not 3 hours after joining said alliance.
What gives?
DeletedUser
Guest
With all due respect Kadjayuni but when you attack a fellow alliance member or pact'd alliance does not a msg pop up WARNING you of this?
If this is indeed true that he claimed it WAS a mistake by him as you claim he said then i'm afraid i have to reach the conclusions the he is either:
1: A very big noob
2: He intentionally wished to sabotage our NAP
3: BOTH
DeletedUser
Guest
No doubt it wasn't the best decision, but I don't see how you can delegate consequences onto The Delicatessen as a whole.