Jump to content
  • Announcements

    • Sentinel

      Cyber Nations Forum Rules   07/03/2016

        Cyber Nations Forum Rules  
      In the process of registering on this forum, all players--including you--agreed to accept these terms and conditions and the terms and conditions of Invision Power Board. In doing so you essentially signed an electronic contract pledging to have read the rules and TOS and agreeing to follow the rules and TOS as written. It is your continued responsibility to read, follow, and keep up-to-date with the CN rules.
      The following are basic guidelines for use of the Cyber Nations community forum. Anyone caught disobeying these guidelines will be issued a warning. The forum staff works on a five warn limit policy unless the situation calls for more appropriate action ranging from a verbal warning to a double warn and suspension to an immediate ban, etc.   Just because something is not listed specifically here as illegal does not mean it's allowed. All players are expected to use common sense and are personally responsible for reading the pinned threads found in the Moderation forum. Questions regarding appropriateness or other concerns can be sent via PM to an appropriate moderator.   A permanent ban on the forums results in a game ban, and vice versa. Please note that the in-game warn system works on a "three strikes you're out" policy and that in-game actions (including warnings and deletions) may not be appealed. For more information regarding in-game rules please read the Cyber Nations Game Rules.   1.) First Warning
      2.) Second Warning
      3.) Third Warning (48 hour suspension at the forum)
      4.) Fourth Warning (120 hour suspension at the forum)
      5.) Permanent Ban   Game Bans and Forum Bans
      If you receive a 100% warn level on the forums, you will be subject to removal from the forums AND have your nation deleted and banned from the game at moderator(s) discretion.   If you are banned in the game, then you will be banned from the forums.   Process of Appeals
      Players may not appeal any in-game actions. This includes cheat flags, canceled trades, content removals, warn level increases, nation deletion, and bans from the game.   Players may appeal individual forum warnings. You may only appeal a warning if you can show with evidence that it was unwarranted or unduly harsh. If a reasonable amount of time has passed (no less than one month and preferably longer) in which you have demonstrated reformed behavior than you may request a warning level reduction. Wasting staff time with inappropriately filed reports and/or unfounded appeals will result in a warn level raise. Repeat incidences will result in a ban from the forum.   Bans are permanent. Banned players may appeal to the Senior Staff if they believe grounds exist (very, very rare) in which they state their case with evidence and why explain why they believe they deserve to be allowed back into Cyber Nations. This process is not quick and the investigation into cases may last three minutes or three weeks or more depending on the individual situation.   The only place where discussion of moderator action is acceptable is in the appropriate Moderation forum. Posting commentary on or disagreement with moderator action elsewhere will result in a warn level raise.   Posting
      All posts must be in English. Common phrases in other languages will be allowed so long as they are translated upon request. Foreign languages are permitted in signatures and avatars, however.   Certain areas of the forum require you to have a nation in either standard CN or CN:TE. If you have...   A SE and a TE nation: You get one forum account. Your forum account name must match your SE nation or ruler name. You are allowed to post in either SE or TE areas of the forum. You must have your CN:TE nation name listed in your profile to post in the CN:TE section of the forum.
      Just an SE nation: You get one forum account. Your forum account name must match your SE nation or ruler name. You are not allowed to post in any TE areas of the forum.
      Just a TE nation: You get one forum account. Your forum account name must match your TE nation name or ruler name. Your must have your CN:TE nation name listed correctly in your profile. You are not allowed to post in any of the SE areas. You are allowed to post in the water cooler, question center and the moderation forums. Other than that, all your posts need to stay in the TE area.   Flame/Flamebait/Trolling
      Flaming is expressing anger or lobbing insults at a person/player rather than a character, post, idea, etc. Flamebait are posts that are made with the aim of targeting/harassing/provoking another user into rule-breaking. Trolling is submitting posts with the aim of targeting/harassing/provoking a specific group into rule-breaking. Forum users should not be participating in any of these, and doing so will result in a warning.   Topic Hijacking
      Hijacking is forcing the current thread discussion off of the original topic and usually results in spam or flame from either side. Forum users found hijacking threads will be given a warning.   Repeat Topics
      One topic is enough. Repeat topics will be locked, removed, and the author given a warning. Users found creating repeat topics after others were locked by staff will receive a warn raise.   Joke Topics
      Topics created as a joke are prohibited. Joke topics will be locked and the author warned. This includes topics in which the author is making an announcement “for” another in-game alliance. Humorous threads are permitted; it is up to the discretion of the moderation staff to determine what is merely satire and what is actually a joke topic.   Spam
      Spam is defined as creating posts or topics containing only contentless material of any kind. Users found spamming will receive a warning. Examples include (but are in no way limited to) posts containing nothing but smilies, "+1", "QFT", "this" any other one/few-word contentless combination, joke threads, or posts containing quotes and anything that counts as spam by itself. Adding words to a post with the express intent of avoiding a spam warn will result in a warning. These posts and other similar contributions have no substance and hence are considered spam. Posts of "Ave", "Hail" or any other one word congratulatory type are acceptable as one word posts. Emoticon type posts such as "o/" without accompanying text is still not allowed. Posts containing only images are considered spam, unless the image is being used in the Alliance Politics sub-forum and then the actual text of the image be placed into spoiler tags.   Posting in All Caps
      Posting large amounts of text in capital letters is not permitted. Use discretion when using your caps lock key.   No Discussion Forums
      There are forums that are not for discussion and are used strictly for game and forum staff to address certain issues, bugs, etc. The following forums are not open to discussion: Report Game Abuse, Report Forum Abuse, and Warn/Ban Appeals. Only moderators and the original poster may post in a thread, period, with absolutely no exceptions. Users found disobeying this guideline will receive an automatic warning for each offense.   Moderation Forums
      All Moderation forums also maintain pinned threads clearly marked as required reading before posting. Failure to read and follow required reading and procedure in a Moderation forum will result in a warning. Examples include posting requests in the wrong forum, failure to include all required information in posts, etc. The standard of conduct and enforcement of rules in Moderation forums is strictly enforced and the repercussions for disregarding rules or disrespecting staff are harsh. Read the pinned threads before posting and you will be fine.   Namecalling
      Excessive or unqualified namecalling is not allowed in IC forums; namecalling should also never make up the bulk of a post. Namecalling is prohibited entirely in all OOC forums.   Filtered Words
      Any attempts to evade the word filter will result in a warning. The terms we have filtered are filtered for a reason and no excuse for evasion will be accepted. Filter evasion includes censoring or deliberately misspelling part of a filtered word.   If you link to a website, image, video, etc., containing profanity, please post a disclaimer before the link. The moderation staff may still remove links if the content is deemed too obscene.   Harassment
      Forum users should not be stalking/harassing others on the forums. Anyone found stalking players from topic to topic, etc., will be subject to a warning.   Gravedigging
      Gravedigging is not allowed anywhere on the forums. Gravedigging is "bumping" old topics which haven't been active for quite some time (four to seven days is standard depending on the nature of the thread and how many pages back it had been pushed before bump). Your warn level will be raised if you are caught doing this.   The Suggestion Box and Black Market forums are partial exceptions to this rule. Suggestions/ideas in that forum may be posted in regardless of age PROVIDING that the reviving post contains constructive, on-topic input to the original topic or discussion. Black Market threads may be bumped by the author if there is new information about the offered exchange (i.e open aid slots). In the Player Created Alliances forum it will not be considered gravedigging to bump a topic up to a year old, so long as the alliance in question still exists and it is not a duplicate thread.   Signatures
      Those who fail to read and abide by these rules will have their signatures removed and receive a warning.   You may have only one image per signature which may not exceed the maximum size of 450 pixels wide by 150 pixels tall. You may have no more than 8 lines of text and text size cannot exceed size 4. Each quote-tag, image and empty line count as a line.   Inappropriate Images and Other Disallowed Images
      Images that are sexual in nature or have sexual overtones are prohibited. It is up to the discretion of the moderation staff to determine what constitutes sexual overtones. Depictions of kissing are permissible provided there are no sexual implications. Images depicting female nipples are prohibited outright.   Making “ASCII art” is prohibited regardless of the image depicted.   Using photos or likenesses of another Cyber Nations player is also prohibited.   Drug References
      Images and posts promoting illegal drug use are prohibited. References to drugs are acceptable only if the moderation staff deems that it is not promoting the use thereof.   Obscene Content and/or "Account Suicide"
      Anyone caught posting vulgar material (including but in no way limited to pornography, "gross," "tubgirl," "lemonparty," photos depicting RL illegal acts such as violence towards humans or animals, child pornography, death photos, and any other obscene or offensive material in either text form or picture form) will have their account(s) permanently banned, and their ISP contacted along with any other applicable internet and RL authorities.   OOC Threats / Revealing Personal Information
      An OOC threat of any nature will equate to an automatic ban from the game and forums. Likewise, the publishing of personal information of any other player without their explicit permission is grounds for warning and/or a ban from the game depending on the severity of the offense.   Death Threats / Death Wishes
      A death threat or a death wish of any nature (including but not limited to telling another player to commit suicide) will result in at very least a 40% warn level increase and 2 day suspension from the forums, with harsher punishments, including a complete ban from the forums and game, up to the discretion of the moderation staff.   Quoting Rulebreaking Posts
      Do not quote any post with obscene content or any other content that has to be removed by the moderation staff. Doing so makes it more difficult for the moderation staff to find and remove all such content and will result in a warn level increase. Putting rulebreaking posts of any kind in your signature is prohibited.   Forum Names
      With the exception of moderator accounts, all forum accounts must match up exactly with the ruler name or nation name of your in-game country. Those found not matching up will be warned and banned immediately. Forum account names may not be profane or offensive.   Multiple Forum Accounts
      With the exception of moderators, if you are caught with multiple forum accounts, the multiple account(s) will be banned, warn level raised, and your identity will be announced by a moderator to the CN community so rule-abiding players can take IC action against you. Multiple forum account offenders will receive a varying percentage warn level raise and/or a permanent ban on a case-by-case basis.   Posting For Other Players
      Posting for banned or suspended players is prohibited, as is posting for any person without a nation. This includes making warn and ban appeals on their behalf.   Imitation &. Impersonation
      Imitation in terms of this forum is mimicking the posting, avatar, or signature styles of another user in an attempt to be satirical or generally humorous. Impersonation in terms of this forum is copying the posting, avatar, or signature styles of another user in order to present the illusion that the person is in fact that user. Imitation is fine and can be quite funny. Impersonation is disruptive and is warnable. Please pay attention to the subtle difference between these two concepts.   A player may not impersonate another player by emulating the characteristics of someone else's past or present account in an attempt to harass, stalk, or flamebait. Creating a new forum account in an attempt to impersonate a standing account will result in deletion and banning without notice.   Any attempt at imitation and/or impersonation of moderators and game staff is strictly prohibited and will be met with harsh repercussions.   Avatars
      Size for avatars is limited by the forum mechanics, therefore there is no size issue for a user to worry about. Avatars must be in good taste, and any avatar containing a picture that is too violent, disgusting, sexually explicit, insulting to another player or staff member, etc. will be removed. Avatars that are potentially seizure inducing will not be permitted. Players may not "borrow" the avatars of any moderator past or present without permission.   Swastikas and Nazi Imagery
      The swastika may not be used in signatures or avatars. Pictures of swastika's are acceptable for use in the In Character (IC) sections of the roleplay forums, so long as its context is In Character, and not Out Of Character. Pictures of Hitler, mentioning of the Holocaust, etc... have no place in the roleplay forums, since these people and events existed in real life, and have no bearing or place in the Cyberverse. Other Nazi or SS imagery is forbidden in all forums.   Moderation Staff
      The revealing of the private identities of any Cyber Nations staffers past or present is strictly prohibited, and thus no speculation/accusation of identity is allowed. Doing so is grounds for moderator action against your account appropriate to the offense, including a full forum/game ban.   Claims of moderator bias should be directed to the highest level of authority--the Head Game & Forum Mod/Admin, Keelah. Claims of moderator bias without supporting evidence is grounds for a warning.   Blatant disrespect of the moderator staff is strictly prohibited. This includes but is not limited to spoofing moderator accounts in any way, sig/avatar references, baiting, flaming, rude demands, mocking, attitude, and unsubstantiated claims of bias. They are volunteers hired to enforce the rules. If you have a problem with the way a moderator is enforcing the rules or the rules themselves please contact Keelah.   Attempting to use the moderation staff as a weapon by abusing the report system in an attempt to get another player warned or banned is strictly prohibited.   Do not ask about becoming or campaign to become a moderator. The moderators are drawn from CN membership but moderation positions are by invitation only. Asking to become one will substantially decrease your chances of ever being asked.   Aiding Rule Violators
      Any user found to know of a serious rule violation without reporting it to a game moderator (eg. knowledge of a user with multiple nations) will be given a warning or, in more serious cases, have their nation deleted.   Aiding Banned Players
      Any user found to be harboring, aiding or otherwise knowingly helping a banned user will be deleted. This includes knowing of their existence within the game without reporting it to the game-moderation staff.   Questionable Actions and Content
      The forum rules are not designed to cover every scenario. Any action that is seen to be counter-productive or harmful to the forum community may be met with moderator action against your account. The Cyber Nations Moderation Staff reserves the right to take action against your account without warning for any reason at any time.   Private Transactions
      Nation selling and other private transactions via such auction sites like eBay is against the Cyber Nations terms and conditions. While our moderators cannot control what people do outside of the game you are not allowed to promote such private exchanges on our forums without expressed permission from admin only. Anyone found to be engaging in such activity without permission will be banned from the game.   Advertising
      Advertising other browser games and forums is prohibited. Soliciting donations towards commercial causes is also prohibited. If you wish to ask for donations towards a charitable cause, please contact a moderator before doing so.   Extorting Donations
      Donations are excluded from any kind of IC payment. Anyone found extorting others for OOC payments will be warned in-game and/or banned.   Third Party Software
      Third party software is not allowed to be advertised on these forums by any means (post, signature, PM, etc). These programs can easily be used to put malware on the user's computer, and as such can cause huge security issues. Anybody who is caught spreading links to these will at the very least have their warning level increased.   Other Forum Terms & Rules   Please take a moment to review these rules detailed below. If you agree with them and wish to proceed with the registration, simply click the "Register" button below. To cancel this registration, simply hit the 'back' button on your browser.   Please remember that we are not responsible for any messages posted. We do not vouch for or warrant the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any message, and are not responsible for the contents of any message. USE THE WEB SITE AT YOUR OWN RISK. We will not be liable for any damages for any reason. THIS WEB SITE IS PROVIDED TO YOU "AS IS," WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED.   The messages express the views of the author of the message, not necessarily the views of this bulletin board. Any user who feels that a posted message is objectionable is encouraged to contact us immediately by email. We have the ability to remove objectionable messages and we will make every effort to do so, within a reasonable time frame, if we determine that removal is necessary.   You agree, through your use of this service, that you will not use this bulletin board to post any material which is knowingly false and/or defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise violative of any law.   You agree not to post any copyrighted material unless the copyright is owned by you or by this bulletin board.
Sign in to follow this  
Samwise

Some needed clarification

Recommended Posts

This post is about 2 weeks too late, and in response to this thread, and to avoid being hit with a gravedig, I'm posting a new topic. I do apologize for how long it's taken me. I have family visiting for Christmas and New Years, and the past couple weeks I've been almost completely unavailable. I tried to read that thread in it's entirety, but admittedly to save myself some time and inevitable headdesking, I'm just going to go for it, and try to keep it short for the people like me, who are tired of reading textwalls.

 

This is the screenshot that apparently broke TE:

C35UbP5.png

 

Prior to this convo with Stevie, I had spoken to HG, Das and a handful of other leaders in TE, and was trying to clear up what exactly happened with UN's score inflation after the round had ended. Some of them were just as confused as I was. It's understandable. We don't have someone who takes daily stats anymore. And I'm sure someone will come in here and debate who was wrong, and who was right, so I'll leave that to them. I don't have the energy for it, nor do I care anymore.

 

But this statement specifically I'd like to clarify:

Quote

But then after Justice League is in motion, HG admits that UN would've had the award for top score fairly without inflating their stats. That threw me, because if that's true, HG either recently found out, or purposely misled me.

 

I've combed over every log I have, mainly to see if I somehow misunderstood HG's statements. I can't find any evidence that he said the above statement. My only conclusion is that the logs were posted in a Justice League announcement, and I have no screenshots of those. He has recently clarified to me what he meant by it, and I assume he'll do so here as well. I do apologize to him for not asking him to clarify his statements then and there.

 

Also, to say I was manipulated or coerced into doing anything, is unfair to HG. I'm a big girl. I can take responsibility for my actions and decisions that I made to put Justice League in motion last round. I don't think it was mistake, nor do I regret it. We have all agreed that there is something wrong with the strongest alliance award, due to it's ability to be gamed so easily. Justice League proved that, as did UN. It's clear admin doesn't care, so I would hope that we'd have come to some agreement on how to handle it going forward. Sadly, I believe it's too late for that, but maybe it's not. We did all just agree on a holiday ceasefire.

 

I'd also like to clarify this now that it's out in the open:

Quote

I'm learning a few things about HG's character. He used Justice League to undermine the leadership in other AA's, which I didn't appreciate. And he was all for accepting those 0 day old nations until I rallied the other gov to support me in not accepting them. For the record, no other AA leader was for accepting them.

 

Yes, whether it was on purpose or not, I did feel as if HG was undermining leadership in other alliances who joined Justice League. In Justice League, he was posting alliance announcements that tried to rally support for targeting UN in the future, as well as guilt tripping other alliances to follow suit. I felt that posting that for all members to see, instead of discussing that among alliance leaders who are the decision makers in their alliances, was meant to cause members to pressure their leaders into targeting UN. Again, it's entirely possible that HG didn't mean to undermine anybody's leadership.


 

I want to end this post with this. No, I don't believe anybody was innocent last round. Justice League felt as if 0 day old nations, who have contributed nothing to TE, should not be used to inflate alliance score to win an award. However, there is nothing in the ToS banning it, so assuming all their recruits were legit players, what UN did was legal. And by the same token, merging alliances was also legal. Some people in Justice League did recruit some people on the last day of TE, and eventually, all leaders - HiredGun included, decided that we shouldn't accept them. Accepting them would've given JL the edge they needed to overtake UN and win it, but we bowed out. If anybody's interested, these are the stats I took seconds before the game went down, where I calculated the score of everybody on UN and JL's AA, pending and approved.

 

We've gone down a rabbit hole here in TE, where we're focusing on who's more right, and who deserves what, and it's spiraled out of control. It's all hypocritical, and I do not wish to be part of it. No, I have no plans to target UN. And no, I will not be joining any JL that creates in the future. If anyone feels that I am deserving of any punishment for my actions or the apparent mess that I've caused, that's fine. My only request is that you focus on me, and not WD's. Of the 5 people in my alliance, for 2 of them, this is their first full round of TE, and they didn't do anything wrong. You're even free to hit me during the holiday peace pact.

 

Anyway, I hope that I've cleared up some things. I hope everybody's Christmas was great, and that you all have a fabulous (and safe!) New Years. Admittedly, I feel a little ashamed posting about this when Wile is asking for Christmas prayers, but it needed to be said. Take care. o/

Edited by Samwise

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to reinforce why Sam was incredibly confused to say I only supported bringing in new nations.

 

This is first JL leader to support Sam not using new nations

srqaeVe.png

 

When Sam started the JL alliance, she made every alliance leader a manager so they could approve their members. New 0 day old nations started to pop up on the aa and were being accepted by unknown managers while Sam was taking them off the aa and again they were being re-accepted so I suggested she take away everyone's ability to approve members and for the remainder of the round, JL seen no more new nations join.

https://screenshots.firefox.com/yMDlKib6iPMxmlxd/discordapp.com

 

So I think these actions contradict that " he was all for accepting those 0 day nations" .

 

I've explained the context around why I did say that the UN did deserve the award earlier on the owf in private to the other JL leaders and to a few other people including Sam. It was only based on them leading the econ race but cos of their underhanded tactics, they don't deserve it.  Just because you're the fastest horse doesn't mean you're guaranteed to win and we have stats that show the race was close between the UN and WotN until the UN leaped ahead with an additional 6 nations while WotN remained static at 19. They feared the WotN fairly overtaking them so they made sure that was the closest they got. In round 43 they did not deserve the award if we were to measure economic strength but they still won it by using the same tactics of padding stats with new nations.

 

I had a rant at everyone in JL for not helping to keep the playing field even, it was nothing personal, just a rant that we shouldn't have had to form JL if others got off their butts and competed fairly as the UN felt they deserved it and would go to any lengths to make sure they won it, hence reaching 69 members. How is a little criticism undermining the other JL leaders? IRON agreed they would help keep the field even and if you're trying to win, you'll naturally contribute no matter how small in number you are. This is overall healthy for the game and activity is good for memberships, it's why D1 has been strong for years now so I am not trying to undermine anyone, especially a 5 nation alliance. 

 

What is more disappointing and disturbing is that my opinions should've been held in complete confidence whether or not Sam or anyone else agreed with them during our time together in JL, she may as well drop every log that was said by everyone. But to take words I either never said or were taken out of context to those who will stop at nothing to see D1 go down cos we're aggressive against those who use underhanded tactics is a betrayal of the highest order when I all simply done was give my support to Sam.

 

The best way to fight people who use underhanded tactics is together with force, it always has been and that is what We'll continue to do.

 

Anyway I'll add more to this but I don't have the time today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, HiredGun said:

Just to reinforce why Sam was incredibly confused to say I only supported bringing in new nations.

 

This is first JL leader to support Sam not using new nations

srqaeVe.png

 

When Sam started the JL alliance, she made every alliance leader a manager so they could approve their members. New 0 day old nations started to pop up on the aa and were being accepted by unknown managers while Sam was taking them off the aa and again they were being re-accepted so I suggested she take away everyone's ability to approve members and for the remainder of the round, JL seen no more new nations join.

https://screenshots.firefox.com/yMDlKib6iPMxmlxd/discordapp.com

 

So I think these actions contradict that " he was all for accepting those 0 day nations" .

 

I don't understand why you asked me to make this thread, then come in here and attempt to discredit me by saying I'm an "incredibly confused" unreliable source. Doesn't that just make people want to not believe what I originally stated in the OP, and more inclined to believe I was somehow manipulated?

 

Yes, I was confused, and still am, on what happened with UN and D1's score last round. But one thing I know without a shadow of a doubt is that you were originally for accepting the 0 day old nations, and that you pressured me into agreeing to accept them, saying that we should play by their (i.e. UN's) rules. That didn't sit right with me, and you know that. We debated it back and forth throughout the day, and at one point, to satiate you, I agreed that at the end of the round, if we needed the NS boost, we'd accept the nations. Otherwise, we'd just let them remain on pending. I notice those logs aren't the ones you posted. Anyway, it ate at me the remainder of the day, because I knew that's not how I wanted to win, so in efforts to go around you, I posted the above message to all the AA leaders. That's what pressured you into agreeing with me.

 

Quote

I had a rant at everyone in JL for not helping to keep the playing field even, it was nothing personal, just a rant that we shouldn't have had to form JL if others got off their butts and competed fairly as the UN felt they deserved it and would go to any lengths to make sure they won it, hence reaching 69 members. How is a little criticism undermining the other JL leaders? IRON agreed they would help keep the field even and if you're trying to win, you'll naturally contribute no matter how small in number you are. This is overall healthy for the game and activity is good for memberships, it's why D1 has been strong for years now so I am not trying to undermine anyone, especially a 5 nation alliance. 

 

If you're the boss, and you tell your workers that they have to work on Christmas, and I go to them and say they should all take the day off, that's undermining your authority.

Quote

What is more disappointing and disturbing is that my opinions should've been held in complete confidence whether or not Sam or anyone else agreed with them during our time together in JL, she may as well drop every log that was said by everyone. But to take words I either never said or were taken out of context to those who will stop at nothing to see D1 go down cos we're aggressive against those who use underhanded tactics is a betrayal of the highest order when I all simply done was give my support to Sam.

 

And nice try. I am not going to log dump any convo's that were said in private. The only logs that I've shown are my own. I never dumped any of your logs, whereas you are dumping mine in discord chats. I never gave UN or Stevie any proof that you misled me. In those logs, I even gave you the benefit of the doubt saying that you might not have known yourself. All I was trying to do was get to the bottom of what was happening, and if that's a betrayal of the highest order, then okay. Tar and feather me boys.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, HiredGun said:

Just because you're the fastest horse doesn't mean you're guaranteed to win

 

What an awful analogy. This is a text based game, there really aren't many contingencies that can arise in terms of the strongest alliance.

 

We would've won it with our main members because we had everything we needed to win it. We deserved to win it because we had the best run. It's really as simple as that. Anyway, all that can be viewed as subjective, so not really worth debating, tbh. 

 

2 hours ago, HiredGun said:

we have stats that show the race was close between the UN and WotN until the UN leaped ahead with an additional 6 nations while WotN remained static at 19.

 

Your stats are incredibly irrelevant.

 

They show that on Nov 11th, we had a 2 point lead on the Wolves, with us at 52 and them at 50. Then on Nov 13th, we approved our temps/ghosts and had a score of 68, while everyone else remained static.

 

The thing is, we had already set the high score.

 

In early october (or late September?) we set the score at 57 (screenshot of us at 57 is in the TE server). Then on October 22nd, you (admittedly) approved your ghosts, then put them back on pending after your score registered, which overtook our score of 57 (that we got with only our main members).

 

After you did that, and right before we declared war on OP, DCS, NDO and WD, we approved our temps, giving us a score of 61.04, the new high score.

 

Then, around November 4th, you had a few P&W friends make nations and join D1. There's a screenshot in the TE server of me and Das discussing that. Granted, you didn't overtake our score of 61.04. But, the only logical conclusion to draw was that you were having those people create so you can make an unfair play for strongest AA. So, since you had those P&W friends join, we approved all of our ghosts and temps giving us a score of 68.87. That was on November 13th, the day we were all fully rebuilt from our two straight wars (first with OP, DCS, WD, NDO, then followed immediately by NLoN and RE).

 

Us approving our ghosts (in response to you) then triggered the NDO/WotN merger, which led to the formation of JL.

 

Then the recruiting of 0 day old nations started, because like you said: 

2 hours ago, HiredGun said:

the UN felt they deserved it and would go to any lengths to make sure they won it

 

2 hours ago, HiredGun said:

I am not trying to undermine anyone, especially a 5 nation alliance. 

 

It's good to know you only aspire to undermine larger AAs. 

 

2 hours ago, HiredGun said:

What is more disappointing and disturbing is that my opinions should've been held in complete confidence whether or not Sam or anyone else agreed with them during our time together in JL, she may as well drop every log that was said by everyone. But to take words I either never said or were taken out of context to those who will stop at nothing to see D1 go down cos we're aggressive against those who use underhanded tactics is a betrayal of the highest order when I all simply done was give my support to Sam

 

Here comes the Samwise slander now :facepalm:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Samwise said:

 

I don't understand why you asked me to make this thread, then come in here and attempt to discredit me by saying I'm an "incredibly confused" unreliable source. Doesn't that just make people want to not believe what I originally stated in the OP, and more inclined to believe I was somehow manipulated?

 

Yes, I was confused, and still am, on what happened with UN and D1's score last round. But one thing I know without a shadow of a doubt is that you were originally for accepting the 0 day old nations, and that you pressured me into agreeing to accept them, saying that we should play by their (i.e. UN's) rules. That didn't sit right with me, and you know that. We debated it back and forth throughout the day, and at one point, to satiate you, I agreed that at the end of the round, if we needed the NS boost, we'd accept the nations. Otherwise, we'd just let them remain on pending. I notice those logs aren't the ones you posted. Anyway, it ate at me the remainder of the day, because I knew that's not how I wanted to win, so in efforts to go around you, I posted the above message to all the AA leaders. That's what pressured you into agreeing with me.

 

 

If you're the boss, and you tell your workers that they have to work on Christmas, and I go to them and say they should all take the day off, that's undermining your authority.

 

And nice try. I am not going to log dump any convo's that were said in private. The only logs that I've shown are my own. I never dumped any of your logs, whereas you are dumping mine in discord chats. I never gave UN or Stevie any proof that you misled me. In those logs, I even gave you the benefit of the doubt saying that you might not have known yourself. All I was trying to do was get to the bottom of what was happening, and if that's a betrayal of the highest order, then okay. Tar and feather me boys.

Of course it was debated whether to accept them or not but I never said I was 100% set on approving them, the goal was to consider all options and work out what was the best course of action for JL but after your message, I was fully behind leaving them off the aa. You may not have dumped logs but you still secretly shared the contents of those logs and continue to now to try and protect your own credibility. This underming you're trying to push on me is ridiculous and you were only trying to get to the bottom of all this by only listening to those who undermined everyone else.

 

13 hours ago, Bajoran Federation said:

 

What an awful analogy. This is a text based game, there really aren't many contingencies that can arise in terms of the strongest alliance.

 

We would've won it with our main members because we had everything we needed to win it. We deserved to win it because we had the best run. It's really as simple as that. Anyway, all that can be viewed as subjective, so not really worth debating, tbh. 

 

 

Your stats are incredibly irrelevant.

 

They show that on Nov 11th, we had a 2 point lead on the Wolves, with us at 52 and them at 50. Then on Nov 13th, we approved our temps/ghosts and had a score of 68, while everyone else remained static.

 

The thing is, we had already set the high score.

 

In early october (or late September?) we set the score at 57 (screenshot of us at 57 is in the TE server). Then on October 22nd, you (admittedly) approved your ghosts, then put them back on pending after your score registered, which overtook our score of 57 (that we got with only our main members).

 

After you did that, and right before we declared war on OP, DCS, NDO and WD, we approved our temps, giving us a score of 61.04, the new high score.

 

Then, around November 4th, you had a few P&W friends make nations and join D1. There's a screenshot in the TE server of me and Das discussing that. Granted, you didn't overtake our score of 61.04. But, the only logical conclusion to draw was that you were having those people create so you can make an unfair play for strongest AA. So, since you had those P&W friends join, we approved all of our ghosts and temps giving us a score of 68.87. That was on November 13th, the day we were all fully rebuilt from our two straight wars (first with OP, DCS, WD, NDO, then followed immediately by NLoN and RE).

 

Us approving our ghosts (in response to you) then triggered the NDO/WotN merger, which led to the formation of JL.

 

Then the recruiting of 0 day old nations started, because like you said: 

 

 

It's good to know you only aspire to undermine larger AAs. 

 

 

Here comes the Samwise slander now :facepalm:

You're trying too hard to spin your rubbish. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Bajoran Federation said:

 

What an awful analogy. This is a text based game, there really aren't many contingencies that can arise in terms of the strongest alliance.

 

We would've won it with our main members because we had everything we needed to win it. We deserved to win it because we had the best run. It's really as simple as that. Anyway, all that can be viewed as subjective, so not really worth debating, tbh. 

 

 

Your stats are incredibly irrelevant.

 

They show that on Nov 11th, we had a 2 point lead on the Wolves, with us at 52 and them at 50. Then on Nov 13th, we approved our temps/ghosts and had a score of 68, while everyone else remained static.

 

The thing is, we had already set the high score.

 

In early october (or late September?) we set the score at 57 (screenshot of us at 57 is in the TE server). Then on October 22nd, you (admittedly) approved your ghosts, then put them back on pending after your score registered, which overtook our score of 57 (that we got with only our main members).

 

After you did that, and right before we declared war on OP, DCS, NDO and WD, we approved our temps, giving us a score of 61.04, the new high score.

 

Then, around November 4th, you had a few P&W friends make nations and join D1. There's a screenshot in the TE server of me and Das discussing that. Granted, you didn't overtake our score of 61.04. But, the only logical conclusion to draw was that you were having those people create so you can make an unfair play for strongest AA. So, since you had those P&W friends join, we approved all of our ghosts and temps giving us a score of 68.87. That was on November 13th, the day we were all fully rebuilt from our two straight wars (first with OP, DCS, WD, NDO, then followed immediately by NLoN and RE).

 

Us approving our ghosts (in response to you) then triggered the NDO/WotN merger, which led to the formation of JL.

 

Then the recruiting of 0 day old nations started, because like you said: 

 

 

It's good to know you only aspire to undermine larger AAs. 

 

 

Here comes the Samwise slander now :facepalm:

Explain where the extra 10 nations you've already used to set a record came from? Record is currently set at 29 yet now you only have 19 members. You don't deserve that record yet you already have a strangle hold on it. I thought the alliance who deserves it should win it? I see you've already resorted to your underhanded tactics. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, HiredGun said:

Explain where the extra 10 nations you've already used to set a record came from? Record is currently set at 29 yet now you only have 19 members. You don't deserve that record yet you already have a strangle hold on it. I thought the alliance who deserves it should win it? I see you've already resorted to your underhanded tactics. 

 

Lol, we couldn't care less about strongest AA this round. And a strangle hold? But I thought you said strongest AA was never taken by an early round log?

 

6 hours ago, HiredGun said:

you only have 19 members

 

giphy.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bajoran Federation said:

 

Lol, we couldn't care less about strongest AA this round. And a strangle hold? But I thought you said strongest AA was never taken by an early round log?

 

 

giphy.gif

It never was until the UN started using 0 day old nations to pad stats and you couldn't care less but you still took the liberty to approve them all then removed them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, HiredGun said:

Of course it was debated whether to accept them or not but I never said I was 100% set on approving them, the goal was to consider all options and work out what was the best course of action for JL but after your message, I was fully behind leaving them off the aa.

 

I'm going to level with you here. I know you're not defending yourself to me, but everyone, and truthfully, you don't need to explain yourself to anyone. It was the last day of the round, emotions were high, and while yes, your first opinion was to accept the nations. But ultimately, you decided against it. And even if you hadn't, accepting them wasn't breaking any gameplay rules. So we're splitting hairs here. Even in my original statement, I said:

 

Quote

And he was all for accepting those 0 day old nations until I rallied the other gov to support me in not accepting them.

 

I understand, that I shouldn't never said that. I've apologized to you in private, and I'll do it again here. I'm sorry. I shouldn't have said it. If I was feeling conflicted, I should've spoken to you about it. I admit that.

 

Quote

You may not have dumped logs but you still secretly shared the contents of those logs and continue to now to try and protect your own credibility.

 

And I've apologized to you, privately and publically. I'm not saying you should accept my apology. But it's clear to me now that you acted as though you were alright with me privately, to bait me into talking to you so you could immediately share my logs. You requested that I post this thread, then basically use it to attack me. You also requested that I talk to IRON personally and clarify things. I'm not sharing content of logs to protect my own credibility, you are. I'm trying to make right here. I'm literally doing everything you asked of me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, HiredGun said:

It never was until the UN started using 0 day old nations to pad stats

 

What? 

 

This literally has no correlation to whether or not early-round logs win the award, and quite frankly, it makes absolutely no sense. 

 

1 hour ago, HiredGun said:

approve them all then removed them. 

 

What are you even talking about? We haven't approved then removed a single nation. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is so much to say and a lot of information that can be spun, distorted, and regurgitated in i think a false way. For the record I absolutely despise Hired Gun, I think he is egotistical, dirty, vengeful,punk  and the list can go on. Most people know of my opinion of him. However that being stated I absolutely align with him on what went down last round. In fact for me to join an alliance with him in it in an attempt to right a wrong should speak volumes in regard to my own opinion of fairness within this game . Loop holes sadly always exist and will be taken advantage of by people regardless of the initial intent of the structure that was made. How we perceive this to be cheating, or playing by the rules, are made  entirely on each individuals shoulders to decide for themselves. Unfortunately we do not have a cybernations police unit, or a court system to decide who is right and who is wrong. No matter how players try to govern each others actions it is a flawed and somewhat futile act. But i know i will continue to make decisions in game based on my own opinion of what is right and what is wrong, and what happened last round was wrong.I truly would have rather seen defcon1  win than see any alliance win any award if it was done by bringing in unplaying nations to slant the scores to win. I am not promoting defcon1 by any means as i have found them in my judgement not to be righteous or innocent either. But which alliance has been? I sadly think we all push the limits just a little bit then we we see an alliance push farther and we call foul. I truly enjoy this community and enjoy despising some of the people in it (HG haha). But to some it up if i see what happened last round happen again i know i will work with anyone in an attempt to prevent it from happening again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, malakarlian said:

I absolutely despise Hired Gun, I think he is egotistical, dirty, vengeful,punk  and the list can go on.

 

lolol

 

2 hours ago, malakarlian said:

an attempt to right a wrong

 

I agree with the overall message of your post, but I have one question:

 

what was the wrong? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, malakarlian said:

There is so much to say and a lot of information that can be spun, distorted, and regurgitated in i think a false way. For the record I absolutely despise Hired Gun, I think he is egotistical, dirty, vengeful,punk  and the list can go on. Most people know of my opinion of him. However that being stated I absolutely align with him on what went down last round. In fact for me to join an alliance with him in it in an attempt to right a wrong should speak volumes in regard to my own opinion of fairness within this game . Loop holes sadly always exist and will be taken advantage of by people regardless of the initial intent of the structure that was made. How we perceive this to be cheating, or playing by the rules, are made  entirely on each individuals shoulders to decide for themselves. Unfortunately we do not have a cybernations police unit, or a court system to decide who is right and who is wrong. No matter how players try to govern each others actions it is a flawed and somewhat futile act. But i know i will continue to make decisions in game based on my own opinion of what is right and what is wrong, and what happened last round was wrong.I truly would have rather seen defcon1  win than see any alliance win any award if it was done by bringing in unplaying nations to slant the scores to win. I am not promoting defcon1 by any means as i have found them in my judgement not to be righteous or innocent either. But which alliance has been? I sadly think we all push the limits just a little bit then we we see an alliance push farther and we call foul. I truly enjoy this community and enjoy despising some of the people in it (HG haha). But to some it up if i see what happened last round happen again i know i will work with anyone in an attempt to prevent it from happening again.

You despised me when you were with D1 so considering our history in opposing alliances, it is no surprise your hatefulness towards me is at unhealthy levels. Calling me vengeful while you pretend to be innocent is a joke if we take a close look at your war history. You've even stated in dows that the dow reason was to settle an old score. No one in this game is innocent of seeking revenge, it has always been a part of the game. The other insults are incredibly hypocritical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think my point was missed....and it actually somewhat does not surprise me. Look past the insult if you can Hired Gun, I stated “

 

However that being stated I absolutely align with him on what went down last round. In fact for me to join an alliance with him in it in an attempt to right a wrong should speak volumes in regard to my own opinion of fairness within this game

 

i was trying to explain that I take your side irregardless of how I feel about you..to be honest when I was in d1 there was never any bad vibes towards you...... but this is funny and proves a point in a way that you can’t seem to understand the point of my post because you are focused on one line of it where I am saying something about you that you don’t like. So you focus on that instead of the bigger picture which is that I would and did align myself with you to try to stop what happened last round from happening.(sigh)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, malakarlian said:

I think my point was missed....and it actually somewhat does not surprise me. Look past the insult if you can Hired Gun, I stated “

 

However that being stated I absolutely align with him on what went down last round. In fact for me to join an alliance with him in it in an attempt to right a wrong should speak volumes in regard to my own opinion of fairness within this game

 

i was trying to explain that I take your side irregardless of how I feel about you..to be honest when I was in d1 there was never any bad vibes towards you...... but this is funny and proves a point in a way that you can’t seem to understand the point of my post because you are focused on one line of it where I am saying something about you that you don’t like. So you focus on that instead of the bigger picture which is that I would and did align myself with you to try to stop what happened last round from happening.(sigh)

I understand you align with D1 on this issue and I'm glad to see someone else verbally oppose their tactics rather than sit quiet or symphasize with them. The only people who'll truly care about this issue without self interest motives are the alliances who were cheated out, D1 and WotN. As for my response, you attacked me, I defended myself and pointed out the hypocrisy in them. I know there were never any negative vibes towards me, I got that detail from a source very close to you. ;)

Edited by HiredGun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/30/2017 at 8:34 AM, HiredGun said:

Explain where the extra 10 nations you've already used to set a record came from? Record is currently set at 29 yet now you only have 19 members. You don't deserve that record yet you already have a strangle hold on it. I thought the alliance who deserves it should win it? I see you've already resorted to your underhanded tactics. 

You've fought two wars with us, you know who our nations are/were. Are you now saying those 10 nations you fought and put into bill lock were not real or perhaps illegal nations? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, BDRocks said:

You've fought two wars with us, you know who our nations are/were. Are you now saying those 10 nations you fought and put into bill lock were not real or perhaps illegal nations? 

All we know is you have an unlimited amounts of friends ready to pad your stats if needed. Not even every alliance in the game banding together can beat you here and some people actually believe there is nothing wrong with this, some even sympathize.

 

On 12/31/2017 at 12:05 PM, Bajoran Federation said:

 

What? 

 

This literally has no correlation to whether or not early-round logs win the award, and quite frankly, it makes absolutely no sense. 

 

 

What are you even talking about? We haven't approved then removed a single nation. 

Early round logs have never won the award but you claimed you had the record mid round and should've won cos of that using all of your ghost and temps of course.

 

Just like now you have the record when you did approve 29 members in total. Now you think you can use nations who still contribute little to nothing and steal the award again from those who deserve it. You're not fooling everyone.

QQnwfkE.png

 

On 12/30/2017 at 10:42 AM, Samwise said:

 

I don't understand why you asked me to make this thread, then come in here and attempt to discredit me by saying I'm an "incredibly confused" unreliable source. Doesn't that just make people want to not believe what I originally stated in the OP, and more inclined to believe I was somehow manipulated?

 

Yes, I was confused, and still am, on what happened with UN and D1's score last round. But one thing I know without a shadow of a doubt is that you were originally for accepting the 0 day old nations, and that you pressured me into agreeing to accept them, saying that we should play by their (i.e. UN's) rules. That didn't sit right with me, and you know that. We debated it back and forth throughout the day, and at one point, to satiate you, I agreed that at the end of the round, if we needed the NS boost, we'd accept the nations. Otherwise, we'd just let them remain on pending. I notice those logs aren't the ones you posted. Anyway, it ate at me the remainder of the day, because I knew that's not how I wanted to win, so in efforts to go around you, I posted the above message to all the AA leaders. That's what pressured you into agreeing with me.

 

 

If you're the boss, and you tell your workers that they have to work on Christmas, and I go to them and say they should all take the day off, that's undermining your authority.

 

And nice try. I am not going to log dump any convo's that were said in private. The only logs that I've shown are my own. I never dumped any of your logs, whereas you are dumping mine in discord chats. I never gave UN or Stevie any proof that you misled me. In those logs, I even gave you the benefit of the doubt saying that you might not have known yourself. All I was trying to do was get to the bottom of what was happening, and if that's a betrayal of the highest order, then okay. Tar and feather me boys.

Yes, I requested a public apology cos you admitted you were wrong in private but in your first public post on the issue you spent most of it trying to protect yourself rather than admit you were wrong, apologizing so we could both move on. Even if I was all for originally holding them, I changed my position and that is what was final but the way you told the UN, is that all I wanted to do was to use the new nations til the end, do you understand we were debating what was best for JL even if that meant we had to look at the option and consequences of holding them, I'd even say the reason why you were fixed on leaving them off was influenced from that debate. But all you're trying to do is continue to blame me for your mistakes and I'm not going to accept it. You can apologize all you want but what I want is for you to admit you were wrong to accuse me for wanting to keep them, misleading anyone and that I was fixed on believing they should've won it. I have explained why you were wrong, if you can prove otherwise, I'd like to see it. You're the only JL leader that I know of who believes I was misleading them and possibly held the smallest membership. For someone who told me they wanted the quiet TE life, you sure seem to want to get involved with the big boy feuds and take a side.

Edited by HiredGun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, HiredGun said:

*Something incoherent, egotistical and a little psychotic.*

 

All I can do is laugh at you..

 

Dwight-Schrute-Laughing.gif?ssl=1

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Bajoran Federation said:

 

All I can do is laugh at you..

 

Dwight-Schrute-Laughing.gif?ssl=1

 

 

You can't do anything else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, HiredGun said:

All we know is you have an unlimited amounts of friends ready to pad your stats if needed. Not even every alliance in the game banding together can beat you here and some people actually believe there is nothing wrong with this, some even sympathize.

 

Early round logs have never won the award but you claimed you had the record mid round and should've won cos of that using all of your ghost and temps of course.

 

Just like now you have the record when you did approve 29 members in total. Now you think you can use nations who still contribute little to nothing and steal the award again from those who deserve it. You're not fooling everyone.

QQnwfkE.png

 

 

I'm not sure how having about 15 brand new players brought into a dying game is wrong. Unfortunately due to your actions, many of those players didn't even last a month. You must feel so proud of yourself. 

 

Your whole argument earlier was that the beginning/mid round score does not determine who the end round winner will be, in the same breath, you go on to complain about a score set by UN in the first month. Either the UN set the mark last round at the mid way mark and no one was going to beat it legitimately or the mid round score not matter at all because another alliance can still beat it? Which is it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, BDRocks said:

I'm not sure how having about 15 brand new players brought into a dying game is wrong. Unfortunately due to your actions, many of those players didn't even last a month. You must feel so proud of yourself. 

 

Your whole argument earlier was that the beginning/mid round score does not determine who the end round winner will be, in the same breath, you go on to complain about a score set by UN in the first month. Either the UN set the mark last round at the mid way mark and no one was going to beat it legitimately or the mid round score not matter at all because another alliance can still beat it? Which is it?

Do I get a new title? Perhaps some ideas...

HG the destroyer of noobs?

HG the butcher of noobs?

HG the monster?

HG the terror?

Newbies wail?

 

And how many times do I have to tell you? No one will ever beat the UN cos you think padding stats with new nations is perfectly fine and those that have sympathized with your lies and manipulation have tried to cripple this campaign.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would love to see this go on and on ( NOT)

(but since I had my cataract surgery a couple weeks ago I don't have the screen set on 200%view anymore )

 

We can make it all fair by a cap on Alliance membership, We have 4 alliances with about 20 members 

If you your cap membership at 18, that's 3 trade circles everything is equal.

If you don't like 18 pick a number

If you have a bunch pending have them make their own alliance,  Having there own Alliance which is smaller allows them to mix it up with some of the smaller alliances , you can still trade with them

If some one goes inactive in your alliance bring one of them back  (like in baseball its your bull pin)

 

I liked what Cowboy tried to do a couple rounds ago making a training alliance,  but a good idea got screwed up (don't remember why but that does not really matter now)

 

Tell you the truth, I am enjoying the game more with just 6 members than I have in a long time.  Try It

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Wayne World said:

I would love to see this go on and on ( NOT)

(but since I had my cataract surgery a couple weeks ago I don't have the screen set on 200%view anymore )

 

We can make it all fair by a cap on Alliance membership, We have 4 alliances with about 20 members 

If you your cap membership at 18, that's 3 trade circles everything is equal.

If you don't like 18 pick a number

If you have a bunch pending have them make their own alliance,  Having there own Alliance which is smaller allows them to mix it up with some of the smaller alliances , you can still trade with them

If some one goes inactive in your alliance bring one of them back  (like in baseball its your bull pin)

 

I liked what Cowboy tried to do a couple rounds ago making a training alliance,  but a good idea got screwed up (don't remember why but that does not really matter now)

 

Tell you the truth, I am enjoying the game more with just 6 members than I have in a long time.  Try It

 

This would fix it and has a lot of support if I recall but I don't see it happening since no one has updated anything to CN for years........but I agree with it (12 or 18 members per alliance)

 

On ‎12‎/‎31‎/‎2017 at 12:01 PM, malakarlian said:

There is so much to say and a lot of information that can be spun, distorted, and regurgitated in i think a false way. For the record I absolutely despise Hired Gun, I think he is egotistical, dirty, vengeful,punk  and the list can go on. Most people know of my opinion of him. However that being stated I absolutely align with him on what went down last round. In fact for me to join an alliance with him in it in an attempt to right a wrong should speak volumes in regard to my own opinion of fairness within this game . Loop holes sadly always exist and will be taken advantage of by people regardless of the initial intent of the structure that was made. How we perceive this to be cheating, or playing by the rules, are made  entirely on each individuals shoulders to decide for themselves. Unfortunately we do not have a cybernations police unit, or a court system to decide who is right and who is wrong. No matter how players try to govern each others actions it is a flawed and somewhat futile act. But i know i will continue to make decisions in game based on my own opinion of what is right and what is wrong, and what happened last round was wrong.I truly would have rather seen defcon1  win than see any alliance win any award if it was done by bringing in unplaying nations to slant the scores to win. I am not promoting defcon1 by any means as i have found them in my judgement not to be righteous or innocent either. But which alliance has been? I sadly think we all push the limits just a little bit then we we see an alliance push farther and we call foul. I truly enjoy this community and enjoy despising some of the people in it (HG haha). But to some it up if i see what happened last round happen again i know i will work with anyone in an attempt to prevent it from happening again.

Hahaha Mal went a little hard on HG there, but as most know I don't usually get along with him either, but agree as well....

 

Any alliance creating fake/1 day old nations to win an award is pathetic.... MEMBERS FROM ALL other alliances joined together to show they did not support what UN was doing and they still have no shame over doing it, instead try to justify and skew what happened .

 

Although Justice League was not my idea (but a fine one since some alliance didn't fancy mine), Before the idea of JL, I started to invited other alliances to join our alliance (WotN) since we were leading with the highest alliance score most of the round, until UN used non playing/new nations to boost their score at the end and took the award from my members. After that I did not care where the 2 nations that won the award were members from (D1, IRON, DCS, NLON, NDO, or WD) just hated to see an alliance that did not deserve the award win it. Anyone that blames Samwise for anything you just put that blame on me instead....

 

Anyone feel free to spin what happened last round however you wish, I know what I saw happen.

 

I'm a grudge holder and I know it, now more will know it as well.....Ill just add you right under Lord Hitchcock name! And if you don't like it you can kiss what I'm rubbing:) 

9ecefcc74c9fca466d215c8f744b9ab2.gif

 

AL Bundy

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, AL Bundy said:

since we were leading with the highest alliance score most of the round, until UN used non playing/new nations to boost their score at the end and took the award from my members.

 

I guess you still don't understand the score mechanic, huh?

 

According to you, your score of 50 (on November 11th) would've won? How's that possible when we already set the high score at 61.04 on November 4th? Or even our score of 57 in late September? Or even D1's score of 59 in late October? 

 

I'm honestly dumbfounded that you think you were actually leading most of the round. In fact, you never once held the high score.

 

Literally. Never.

 

Like we've said over and over, the only time we boosted our score with non-playing nations was after every alliance merged together for the sole purpose of inflating stats, so again, this doesn't line up with the facts. 

 

We've already proven this wrong several times, but if you want to keep denying facts to support your false narrative, then by all means, go ahead.

 

7 hours ago, AL Bundy said:

hated to see an alliance that did not deserve the award win it.

 

Lol, what? Who did deserve it then? 

 

7 hours ago, AL Bundy said:

Any alliance creating fake/1 day old nations to win an award is pathetic.... MEMBERS FROM ALL other alliances joined together to show they did not support what UN was doing and they still have no shame over doing it, instead try to justify and skew what happened .

 

This makes 0 sense, Bundy. All it does is show that you weren't paying attention to the events that transpired. 

 

I have to be honest, the level of egotism, self-righteousness, close-mindedness and unintelligence in this post rivals no one but HG himself. 

 

7 hours ago, AL Bundy said:

I'm a grudge holder

 

As am I.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/1/2018 at 11:03 PM, HiredGun said:

Yes, I requested a public apology...

 

No, you requested that I clarify the statements that I made. I did that. 

 

Quote

For someone who told me they wanted the quiet TE life, you sure seem to want to get involved with the big boy feuds and take a side.

 

I'm not taking anybody's side. I fact checked you to get a full accounting on what was happening.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

×