Lol... im enjoying reading dalmasio's posts... lucid and well written... and the content rocks..
Now see thats the kind of thing i was looking for a very good very clear statement of what happened, if you'd simply talked about DN taking in refugees to begin with we could have all seen exactly what was going on.At what point in any of the messages was it made clear that he was a founder? As I am not all-knowing I did not know, simple. With regards to him not being "not high enough to speak to" yeah, you're correct. But as I was unaware he was not a founder and I just figured he was an uncooperative diplo - my bad
However, if the founder of your own alliance refuses to acknowledge players as refugees then I have no idea where the problem is with regards to us dropping the pact I think you will find on all worlds the refugee policy is consistent and any other alliance would do the same.
As it all comes out - we see that The Enlightened did not back-stab anyone.
Because it's entertaining for everyone, the posts got you reading The more fighting, the merrier.Why can't everyone just get along?
Now see thats the kind of thing i was looking for a very good very clear statement of what happened, if you'd simply talked about DN taking in refugees to begin with we could have all seen exactly what was going on.
Taking in refugees like WoE is one thing, they were allies and their enemies aren't really worthy of note. But taking in refugees from an unfriendly alliance which is also at war with one of your pact members really is a bad idea.
Thanks for clearing that up for me dalmasio
If he messaged me ingame - I would more than likely not have replied. If I did reply I would have given him my side and once again he would have only that to go on. Now as this thread has evolved himself and others can see we did not back-stab as he was originally lead to believe.Clearing this up? Scully, if all you wanted was Dalmasios side of the story, why didn't you just mail him in game? I think it's hilarious that you listen to one thing he says, and you're satisfied.
Are we using personal definitions? Okay. My definition is simply a player that is in alliance that is in a war with another alliance (esp an alliance you had a pact with). Those players you recruited were in an alliance that we were at war with therefore should be regarded as refugees.Also, Dalmasio, can you explain to me your definition of a refugee please?
You are trying to use semantics and statistics with regards to who could be classed as a refugee. I do not. I am a simple player with regards to how I deal with things. Once again for clarity - a refugee is ANY player that is recruited from an enemy alliance, i am sure many other players would agree with me on this as I always perceived it to be an unwritten Grepolis rule in all worlds.According to grepostats, Riverjon lost 1 city to BW on 7/27, then he took a city from BW on 8/08, another on 8/21, THEN, he joined DN on 8/23, and then he took an enlightened city on 8/25 (which is in ocean 34, that we have no agreement on) So he took 2 cities from BW and lost one to BW. So, by my definition, he is not a refugee to any alliance, ESPECIALLY TE.
I am sure I said I have the messages to back up the fact that we did not back stab. Also - Star Charlie did show Jomango the attack reports on Riverjon and Bunny - but he decided to to share those with the rest of the alliance - I have that message still I believe - infact I think I forwarded it to HellyBelly herself. Once again - as you seem to like me repeating myself- Jomango refused to acknowledge the reports.As far as battle reports go, show them to me since you claim you have them.
Well seeing as The Enlightened and Black Watch are at war with D.N. I'm guessing we believed them to be refugees after all. It's a great strategy D.N. have, do what you want then complain about it when things do not go your way.hamster360;449815I said:f these 2 players were actual refugees I believe that TE and BW with a combined 1000+ cities could have taken more than one city from them.
This quote is priceless - you have openly admitted that you have seen the reports from Black Watch attacking that player, and thus still state the player as a non-refugee by using your own very specific definition. You should keep posting - the more you post the more you show the brilliance of DN diplomacy.ALSO, when you provide these reports, can you make sure that this time they are of TE attacks, and not BW reports.
I claimed he was a refugee. Not simply a TE refugee - which once again is simply being picky because you know you are wrong and your statement once again implies you agree he could be seen as a Black Watch refugee - and before you try to double-talk your way out of this the underlined part of the quote implies you agree he was a BW refugee. I am sure others who are objective would also agree.You are after all claiming that Riverjon and Bunny are refugees of TE. Unless you are the puppetmaster of BW?
This will bring me slightly off topic - I apologise for this but I feel something needs some clarification as things like this have been raised up before and I feel it is not fair on Black Watch unless I reply.Unless you are the puppetmaster of BW?