How good is your Pack?

SamuraiDragon

Guest
Why on face of earth would you want to do that?
WHY?
WHY
lololol
seeing as how it is now baised with mostly The Baterds posting it kinda gets boring ;)

happy hunting too those that may still play this server
 

oneangeldies

Guest
I just want to point out one fact that Ticina seems to miss. DeB's choice to attack TVB and IGB's choice to attack DeB were two separate decisions. IGB was going to attack DeB anyway, DeB just so happened to go after TVB roughly around the same time. We attacked them, they attacked TVB - their bad decision, not ours.

This is all.
 

ticina

Phrourach
I just want to point out one fact that Ticina seems to miss. DeB's choice to attack TVB and IGB's choice to attack DeB were two separate decisions. IGB was going to attack DeB anyway, DeB just so happened to go after TVB roughly around the same time. We attacked them, they attacked TVB - their bad decision, not ours.

This is all.
I didnt say it was yours fault. DeB had targeted you with TC and when they realized that TVB and IGB had sonething going on they moved towards o56(main ocean to TVB), thats were it became TVB/IGB vs DeB/TC.

All didnt happen at the same time. Roystopolis being solo started taking ghost or inactives cities at o66,o57 and o56. TC coming from the west
 

Stenrun

Guest
That's not quite correct. The deal that Cyprus64 and I struck was a four way deal. We wouldn't get involved in each other's wars except if either side messed with our closest ally. In other words TVB/IGB couldn't attack DeB/TC and visa-versa. The problem didn't really happen until the spirit of the deal was broken when TC merged with TE effectively cutting off TVB's ability to expand. At the same time DeB (cyprus) was taking a hard-line with us which was starting to tick off our council.

Below was the correspondence between myself and cyprus64. To clarify, some of the messages contained past quotes within the messages reminding cyprus64 of our past agreements, but I don't think this system allows quotes within quotes so it might be confusing...I'll put things in bold to denote quoting prior conversations within a message.

Author has written the following:
Stenrun on 2012-07-21 at 21:08
I'm not sure who thought it would be a good idea to take Uruatri in, our former member, long-time farming and conquest target (when the cities were ripe). That is one player who is a far cry from a border dweller, well within our Oceans. It is my understanding that his cities would not be supported, however my recent conquest 65 Ultionem received support from two players after my conquest today, who knows how many came prior:

Jhyamolingma (NVRGVUP) supports Port Revenge
nvrU-2-44
NVRGVUP
Deus ex Birema

Port Revenge
Stenrun
Inglorious Basterds

__________________


Etepsed Egnis (flyingeagle12) supports Port Revenge
A. Flyville 3
flyingeagle12
Deus ex Birema

Port Revenge
Stenrun
Inglorious Basterds
3203202020
Author has written the following:
cyprus64 on 2012-07-22 at 08:36
He was invited by Lord Leif whilst i was moving out of my house.

I will forward my messages to LL regarding this if you request so, it shows i was not happy about taking a refugee.His support requests had been deleted whenever they were seen and he is even claiming on our forums that we have a spy doing the deleting.

Some guys had obviously sent support if they saw them before a mod deleted them.

It is i agree frankly a mess, but i am going to tell him to expand in 55 where he somehow had a city(long way from 75) and to give those cities up.This seems the easiest way round a up by one of our guys in inviting him.

Our guys were all too keen to support, because for a long time they have been angered by yours and TVB's continued expansion in O55.You reached 98 cities at one point before we swapped 10 macca cities in 65 for your withintempo guys 9 cities.

Your other leader has accused us of not been trustworthy, when you know full well i have requested time and again to cease O55 expansion.I don't care if they are border or not, if it is listed as 55 it is 55.You also know that they were not all border by a long way and as it was my only request at the start it shows a lack of trust on your alliances part to have continually breached this request.

That is why i told him, as i had previously said if expansion continued, the pact is null and void.That was at around 80 cities when i mentioned it, but 98 was a step too far.I am not saying we are declaring war, but if expansion continues we will reserve the right to protect our core ocean as i said right at the start of our agreement.

So, you can continue attacking Uruatri or give me a bit of time to sort it out and have the support pulled, which frankly would be best for your guys as the morale is going to stink very soon?

I await your reply.
Jon
Author has written the following:
Stenrun on 2012-07-22 at 09:04
Jon,

As mentioned prior I'm not the point man any more so I'll get this to the current powers that be.

Regarding our last expansion conversation, this was my last message to you:


Author has written the following:
Stenrun on 2012-06-21 at 21:09
Yes, and the original agreement stated that the boarder cities wouldn't be an issue which is where our expansion has taken place. If you want to change the agreement then I'm fine with discussing that.

I have to get back to work but I can follow up with any response in several hours.



You never responded to me so I assumed that border cities were still fine. By your current message it is clear that they are not. Forwarding this to them since they have had around a months worth of discussions with you since this last message regarding territorial issues.

Cordially,

Stenrun

Author has written the following:
cyprus64 on 2012-07-23 at 16:03
Well your current point men don't negotiate nor listen.

I have seen enough of their mails to other alliances accusing me of lord knows what.I had nothing to do with inviting Uruatri nor did one bireme nor sword of mine go in any of his cities.My DBP came from the macca222 cities in O55 your alliance tried to wrongfully take, also from the lame attacks by extraodinary.

Now, these alliances you guys are talking to regarding a war against us are in reality forwarding the mails to me, and if i see one more message lying about me, i will report them as that is the same as abuse, though the legal term may well be Libel.

If you guys do not have the stones to fight us without the rest of the server that is not our problem, but i will not stand my name being dragged through the mud with blatant lies.

I will not give any more warnings about this, i will just report your guys and get them banned.You and they know exactly who they are and i suggest you explain the libel laws to them along with the grepo rules too.

Regards
Jon
Author has written the following:
Stenrun on 2012-07-23 at 17:45
Jon,

What are the lies that need to be addressed?

Cordially,

Stenrun

(No response to my message) Below was my final message to him which he also didn't respond with past messages included proving that our moves in O-55 were within our agreement...

Author has written the following:
Stenrun on 2012-07-23 at 21:20
Jon,

You have still not answered me regarding changing the agreement to making O-55 expansion off limits. You often disparged us for taking cities there which was not the terms of the agreement. However, we have not once violated the terms of the agreement. When you protested our advances in O-55 we acquiesced, though again these were not the terms of the agreement. When you claimed we were 'making excuses' we were always still well within the rules of the agreement. Let me refresh your memory here:

Author has written the following:
NAP/Pact proposal between DeB/GS & IGB/TVB:

*An agreement binding us from attacking each other or our closest pact mates. GS on your side and TVB on ours. TVB and GS would have to agree to the same, all four to go into effect.
*Stay out of one another's wars including attacking the enemy by crossing into each other's oceans. For example we would not go NW after Republica or Revolution. Any attacks by our players on their (Republica's/Revolutions) cities would only be within our borders.
*Offering defensive support to the opposition in our conflicts, outright or secret, would be prohibited.
*Attacks against other alliances or pact mates other than GS or TVB would be ignored and we would not pick sides.
*Dissolution of the pact would be agreed on by both sides generally due to just cause. Including: Multiple spy attempts, warlike actions, or running out of real estate so there are no other targets. If dissolution was preempting war with one another it would also include adequate warning (2,3,5,7 days??? whatever is agreed upon in advance).

If any of this is unclear feel free to ask.

Cordially,

Stenrun


We never crossed over to attack GE, Republica, or anyone else for that matter. And if you will remember the agreement was for us not to take AAB cities in O-55. It didn't stretch beyond that, so I'm not sure where we were perceived to be violating the agreement not to enter O-55. We generally avoided that ocean, minus the border cities out of respect, yet were chastised for 'breaking the agreement' when we clearly did not!

Author has written the following:
Stenrun on 2012-05-09 at 16:47
Thank you for the transparency. A few of our players stationed in O-55 wondered if independent or non-AAB cities in their Ocean were fair game. I have told them that they should be fine, that the agreement was regarding AAB. If you disagree, please let me know and I'll address it with the guys. I'll have to double-check later, but I think all of the claims so far have been outside of O-55.

Also, if any information I pass on to you via our informants doesn't seem accurate, please let me know as well. We try to stay apprised as to which ones pass on good information and are trustworthy.

Cordially,

Stenrun


Author has written the following:
cyprus64 on 2012-05-09 at 18:41
Oh yeah none AAB cities are fine, you don't have that high a holding there to become a problem for some more independent takes.Just let your guys know if they take a city and find one of our guys is coming for it, to dodge and we wouldn't follow through.Obviously we would treat the same situation the same.


Let me be perfectly clear, I am NOT questioning your integrity here, though I am questioning your recollection of the agreements which clearly don't put O-55 off limits. Heck even up though a few conversations yesterday I began to wonder if O-55 was off limits because of your threats to stay out, but after many hours of sifting through messages I found nothing to indicate we have done anything wrong.

Cordially,

Stenrun