Pnp Greater love hath no man than this, that he lay down his friends for his life

Bearissimus

Strategos
Back in 1962, the UK's governing Conservative Party was deeply unpopular, and in an attempt to reverse his fortunes the Prime Minister of the time, Harold Macmillan, decided to sack a third of his cabinet. It became known (rather distastefully) as "The Night of the Long Knives" and became known as the greatest act of political betrayal and backstabbing of recent times. The title of the thread is a quite from the Liberal politician Jeremy Thorpe, and sums up the general feeling of disgust at someone who would throw his colleagues under a bus to save his own skin.

Which is all well and good, but what's it got to do with Lapithos?

This week, the Knights Council received a proposal from B.D. Legion. They wished to merge their top 40-50 players into us, "absorbing" the smaller players. They wanted a Founder role, and 3 leader's positions.
When the laughter died down, all that was left was outrage. Outrage that they would be prepared to throw their own smaller players to the wolves - in fact be the wolves themselves - and expect us to do the same. I said in Council that our smallest player was worth more than all their bigger players, and was swiftly corrected - THEIR smallest player is worth more than all their bigger players. We play the game a certain way; with honesty and honour at the heart of it. Some may scoff at that, thinking that you need to be dishonest and underhand to succeed at this game, but it's not a view we share, and it's clearly successful enough, given how we're doing in general, and how we're doing in our war with BDL in particular.
Our Council's decision was unanimous, with every member saying the same thing, in a variety of different words: how could we possibly work with people who would turn on their own alliance members like that, and expect us to do the same?

So thanks, BDL, but no thanks: practically, it made no sense anyway as we're doing very nicely in our war and will probably take many of the cities we were being offered for ourselves, but morally, it was quite unacceptable. At the end of the day, we know you're prepared to do anything to save your skins, and even more for the No 1 spot, but we're not prepared to sacrifice honour - or fun - for that.
 

Wahanok

Guest
At the end of the day when you're stuck with more than 30 worthless simmers or inactives, there's nothing to sacrifice. That was the case for BDL. So call it dishonourable, call it an immoral act; trimming the fat is a neccesary thing to do in every alliance. It was my idea and it has been my intention to trim the fat off of BDL, I'll admit you that, and such agreements can work out very beneficial for both parties in long term.
If you ever had more experience, I'm sure you'd know that.

Wahan/Frank1a
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Greygnarl The Destroyer

Guest
I don't play on this world but the fact that you have simmers doesn't mean that another alliance with players around the same size do.

I am with The Knights here - from what it sounds any alliance willing to throw it's smaller players to the wolves is a bad alliance. Well played, Knights.
 

Bearissimus

Strategos
lol was that remark aimed at me :)
Well yours were the choicest and fruitiest, but actually word for word what I said out loud when I read the proposal. ;)

At the end of the day when you're stuck with more than 30 worthless simmers or inactives, there's nothing to sacrifice. That was the case for BDL. So call it dishonourable, call it an immoral act; trimming the fat is a neccesary thing to do in every alliance. It was my idea and it has been my intention to trim the fat off of BDL, I'll admit you that, and such agreements can work out very beneficial for both parties in long term.
If you ever had more experience, I'm sure you'd know that.

Wahan/Frank1a
Well it's hard to avoid the rather trashy observation that you've nearer 80 simmers these days, Frank, but moving on I'm afraid it's you that demonstrates your lack of experience there - of decent alliances, and of leadership. If you've that many simmers out of 80 players, you've a serious leadership problem. In a proper alliance, the leaders would've, well, led - they would be cajoling, encouraging and guiding their smaller players to take a full part and helping them to take cities in key strategic areas - and if they refused to take part, kicking them. But we all know that's not happened with BD; all that's mattered has been trying to protect the Number 1 position, and support has only been freely available to those close to the leadership group. That's very far indeed from good leadership, and is the explanation of why you're in your current pickle - why would your so-called simmers care for an alliance that patently doesn't care for them? Instead of trying to negotiate something that protects all your members, one of the key points from your side was the issue of Founders and Leaders roles - as one of my correspondents who should know has said "Position is everything, respect is nothing". And ultimately, that's why you're losing both. The worthless ones aren't the simmers, but the leaders who have caused this situation to arise with their selfishness.
 

Wahanok

Guest
Well it's hard to avoid the rather trashy observation that you've nearer 80 simmers these days, Frank, but moving on I'm afraid it's you that demonstrates your lack of experience there - of decent alliances, and of leadership. If you've that many simmers out of 80 players, you've a serious leadership problem. In a proper alliance, the leaders would've, well, led - they would be cajoling, encouraging and guiding their smaller players to take a full part and helping them to take cities in key strategic areas - and if they refused to take part, kicking them. But we all know that's not happened with BD; all that's mattered has been trying to protect the Number 1 position, and support has only been freely available to those close to the leadership group. That's very far indeed from good leadership, and is the explanation of why you're in your current pickle - why would your so-called simmers care for an alliance that patently doesn't care for them? Instead of trying to negotiate something that protects all your members, one of the key points from your side was the issue of Founders and Leaders roles - as one of my correspondents who should know has said "Position is everything, respect is nothing". And ultimately, that's why you're losing both. The worthless ones aren't the simmers, but the leaders who have caused this situation to arise with their selfishness.
Out of 80 players, we got loads of simmers that don't respond to MM's or look on the forums, 30 people in VM, and loads of inactives too. Except for the 30 people in VM I can't currently judge about, the inactives and simmers are a worthless bunch to an alliance - my alliance.
First of all, I've led many alliances so you don't need to try and explain to me how a proper alliance works. With BDL, we're trying to keep our position on the map, and I don't care for the pointsranking because IMO all that matters are the actions on the battlefireld, and the BP-rankings.
Then there's the matter of the "horrible leadership being selfish". Well I beg to differ. I've seen many people trying to help out all players. The lack of information the players give is what results in losing cities. And you're right, I dont care for simmers, they don't play the game, they're just building cities so real players can take em, but dude.. I hate leaving man behind, but if I don't know them I got no problem with it. A leader also has to make hard decisions in order to keep the alliance safe -My initial reason to join BDL with my former alliance - and if that means leaving a 30-heads counting worthless bunch, so be it.

I didn't make the proposal, I only was told it was proposed and you lot said no, but I disagree with the founders-part. I dont care for leadership, I'd rather be a soldier. But my people - the active players in BDL - deserve to know what's going on behind hidden doors, so you should find some way to understand that a representative player for the other half of a merged alliance should be in the council.

And IMO the worthless ones are the simmers, and the naive bunch that fights their battles verbally for them.

Wahan/Frank1a
 

Bearissimus

Strategos
Some very fair points in there, Frank - firstly, this didn't sound a lot like you TBH.
And yes, you're absolutely right that someone has to look after the interests of a merging group in a merge, at least at first - if it's a successful merge, the factions have to cease to exist a.s.a.p.
I've been in that position, I do understand that; the point is that it should be about the group of members that you take as a whole, not the individual leaders. Clearly we agree on that. None of which really changes my opinion of what's gone on here, but I know it's not all the BDL leadership to blame.
 

DeletedUser47121

Guest
Hmm i have a nice idea for a little pnp with lot of pictures about this but i dont want to embaress BDL even more.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

makro 356

Phrourach
Back in 1962, the UK's governing Conservative Party was deeply unpopular, and in an attempt to reverse his fortunes the Prime Minister of the time, Harold Macmillan, decided to sack a third of his cabinet. It became known (rather distastefully) as "The Night of the Long Knives" and became known as the greatest act of political betrayal and backstabbing of recent times. The title of the thread is a quite from the Liberal politician Jeremy Thorpe, and sums up the general feeling of disgust at someone who would throw his colleagues under a bus to save his own skin.

Which is all well and good, but what's it got to do with Lapithos?

This week, the Knights Council received a proposal from B.D. Legion. They wished to merge their top 40-50 players into us, "absorbing" the smaller players. They wanted a Founder role, and 3 leader's positions.
When the laughter died down, all that was left was outrage. Outrage that they would be prepared to throw their own smaller players to the wolves - in fact be the wolves themselves - and expect us to do the same. I said in Council that our smallest player was worth more than all their bigger players, and was swiftly corrected - THEIR smallest player is worth more than all their bigger players. We play the game a certain way; with honesty and honour at the heart of it. Some may scoff at that, thinking that you need to be dishonest and underhand to succeed at this game, but it's not a view we share, and it's clearly successful enough, given how we're doing in general, and how we're doing in our war with BDL in particular.
Our Council's decision was unanimous, with every member saying the same thing, in a variety of different words: how could we possibly work with people who would turn on their own alliance members like that, and expect us to do the same?

So thanks, BDL, but no thanks: practically, it made no sense anyway as we're doing very nicely in our war and will probably take many of the cities we were being offered for ourselves, but morally, it was quite unacceptable. At the end of the day, we know you're prepared to do anything to save your skins, and even more for the No 1 spot, but we're not prepared to sacrifice honour - or fun - for that.
Im usualy at smallest players at the begging and i think founders eloud regret if they wloud get a golden piggy n00b instead of me
 

dazzler66

Guest
not being snide at all ...just think its a rubbish name ..... and as for the rest, you all brought it upon yourselfs
 

Wahanok

Guest
Did we ask LS to betray us? Didn't we try diplomacy?
Dazzler, you should really start reading the stuff you post before you post it. You act like it is a whole chainreaction that we started, but it's a lot of people stirring up emotions in a lot of people who all decided to work together and bring some alliance down.

It seems that's the way these alliances opperate.. Is there a allliance you want gone? Team up with the rest of the server and attack.
Very brave.
Good job on bringing down BDL, but don't say it was because of skill. It was due to inactives, lazy worthless scum and sheer number.

Why don't you come up with a better name Dazz, then I'll check it out and throw it in the bin afterwards. Sounds good?