DeletedUser
Guest
Omg hahahahha this is sooo funny +rep sometimes later when they alowe me to give ya againwell if i was your leader murph i'd boot you, oh now i come to think of it when i was your leader i did
hahaha
hahahaDeletedUser5554
Guest
I'm just going to leave my two cents here.
Murph if you don't like the way an alliance is being run you're welcome to leave. Just because the guy is bigger doesn't mean he's better. I've seen top 12 players get the heck beat out of them by guys ranked far behind them. As for mouthing off on the forums with inaccurate info you should always provide links and pictures to prove what you say is true. If there's a problem then its generally a better idea to talk to the leader and politely leave the alliance. Or even talk to the pact leader.
Murph if you don't like the way an alliance is being run you're welcome to leave. Just because the guy is bigger doesn't mean he's better. I've seen top 12 players get the heck beat out of them by guys ranked far behind them. As for mouthing off on the forums with inaccurate info you should always provide links and pictures to prove what you say is true. If there's a problem then its generally a better idea to talk to the leader and politely leave the alliance. Or even talk to the pact leader.
DeletedUser37948
Guest
Personaly i cant understand why so many people agreed with murph
while keeping inactives in an alliance is stupid, it is not murphs place to tell a pact allie what to do and you definatly dont attack pact allies.
also im suprised everyone did not notice the cleaver editing of the mails posted
we only get to hear murphs side of the story the replys from his leader are blatently missing why would that be?
while keeping inactives in an alliance is stupid, it is not murphs place to tell a pact allie what to do and you definatly dont attack pact allies.
also im suprised everyone did not notice the cleaver editing of the mails posted
we only get to hear murphs side of the story the replys from his leader are blatently missing why would that be?
DeletedUser
Guest
Thank you Zero for stating what most seem to have missed.
It may be a war game but it is a game and good manners do apply.
The city is an inactive of an ally and as such is out of bounds to all pact members until our ally says differently.
It may be a war game but it is a game and good manners do apply.
The city is an inactive of an ally and as such is out of bounds to all pact members until our ally says differently.
DeletedUser5554
Guest
Guess this is where the phrase "read between the lines" applies to those of us who fell for it.
DeletedUser21770
Guest
Nah I'd still hit it anyway then send a spy report a few days later to show its inactivity before hitting it again =P Mind you it depends on the situation I guess.
DeletedUser37948
Guest
it does not matter if a player is active or inactive grepolis is a team game if your in a pact then you are in a pact and you dont attack pact allies simples. also as a team game its not a place for people who just do as they please regardless.
attacking inactives is not the issue its attacking allies and not following your leaders requests that is the sin in all this.
DeletedUser21770
Guest
You have a valid point there, but then you're getting onto the topic of how good your leaders are etc. I'm personally not a fan of pacts anyway, let alone a pact where the pacted alliance is keeping hold of inactives for little or no reason other than to look larger.
While I would probably take it up with my leader (and give the occasional kick here and there), the player in this instance doesn't seem to have done that (and if he has he's disregarding it anyway)
While I would probably take it up with my leader (and give the occasional kick here and there), the player in this instance doesn't seem to have done that (and if he has he's disregarding it anyway)
DeletedUser37948
Guest
did murph get rimmed ? or just restart before he was forced too
DeletedUser21770
Guest
No idea...let's ask him =P