Rhizoctonia

Coming from the guy who is apart of "no" alliance, and no interest in doing so, pretty much anyone is doing more then you. Go back to your hole. Getting on ones knees and begging for mercy? ...man you're right, learned something new today. I'll give MI6 one thing, they don't admit when they continually fuck up, they just go down swinging and continue to be the jackasses which has got them where they're at time and time again.

Shouldn't miss me too much, I enjoyed kicking the snot out of a few of you last war...I know you'll are in a rush again though. Great burn as well, I am so glad MI6 is that so called massive active alliance full of egotistical jackasses that continue to keep getting their members rolled. I commend you on being able to keep members.

Do you do anything but complain? You have seriously have been spewing the same old shit war after war, year after year. If you hate shit so much, then actually do something, besides just continuing to do absolutely nothing and then crying about the people who are actually are.

You actually are. If you and MI6 want to claim you're not because you don't have forum access and have a sweet title as Non-member...that's cool, but being accepted to the AA and remaining on it pretty much refutes that. Want to play the "I'm cool, I'm not in any alliance nor want to be," then go sit with no AA, otherwise quit acting like you're not. Though I do hope a few people take you up on being unaligned and raid you while MI6 sits and watches. I hope your brain didn't explode with that brilliant addition to the discussion.

Glad to see this change. Though as other's posted, I would say o/ should be simply enough of a reply as well, but nonetheless I like to change. Many times I had to just add extra words, when a simple "congrats" was all that was needed

This is good, this is very good!

And that's the problem. They made a new rule knowing that there was literally no way to really determine the legitimacy if it was two different people, or 1 person playing on two nations. Sure, there are some signs it's likely the same person, as in one logging in right after the other....but even that could be a husband getting on, then letting their wife sit down and login to theirs. I can't honestly see anyway they can determine the difference besides purely speculation and one's assumption. As mentioned, sure there has been instances where a new alliance of new nations are made and you can easily spot that they were made to send aid/tech to a certain nation/nations and are blatantly obvious multis....but as I said, in most cases the person benefiting from that wasn't even punished. If not a ban, giving the benefit of the doubt the person receiving the aid didn't know, they should certainly have all the tech they earned removed from them. I look at people posting ban appeals from the past months since the new rule was put into place, all claiming it was a family member that started to play, and by the new rule change, should be allowed. Most responses were either "you know it was the same person," or no response to their appeal at all. I for one would like to see all the multi's removed from the game, however the introduction of allowing more then 1 nation per IP has now left it up to the discretion of the admin staff to decide if it's true or not, which I can't see how they can possibly know without physically being at their house to see. Now, it's purely a risk game for the people who truly have two people in the same household wanting to play, as they could login too quickly from one another or something that might seem odd, and now they're both banned. I was against the inactivity mode, mainly because I saw it as a way for people to dodge a war, but I at least saw the merit in it, plus I know many instances people had their nation deleted because something came up or wasn't able to log in, and then never came back because they didn't want to start all over. However, the rule change for nations on 1 IP i don't think was really that huge of a problem to begin with. I really don't think the amount of people not being able to play because someone else in the household already did was large enough to put into a place the headache that now as consumed the game, which is deciding if someone is a multi or not without physically being there to see. It merely opened up the game to be exploited easily, and no way to truly know besides a few obvious cases. That's why either you go back to the old rule and make it simple, more then 1 nation on a IP = Banned, or you just don't do anything anymore to anyone besides blatantly obvious multi's, and realize you are letting anyone have as many nations as they please.

Because people are using the whole "spouse/"sibling" rule to make more multi's then use the excuse it's not the same person, it's my wife or brother or something else. Is in some instances this likely true, yes, but I bet in more instances then not, it's the same person using two nations. I made my point known when this whole new rule was talked about, and then introduced. I knew it would become what it was, where it pretty much allows everyone to have a multi and claim it's a family member. I do not claim to know the admin's ways of proving someone a multi or an actual other family member, but honestly, I don't see how you can possibly tell the difference. Thus, now most people are banned if reported that someone has two nations on 1 IP, be it legitimate or not. There's only really 3 options, either return to the former rule where there is only 1 allowed nation on an IP, allow up to a certain on one IP (knowing people will make multi's, and some will be true but unable to determine the legitimacy), or 3, just let people do as they please and make as many nations on 1 IP as they please. I personally think it was a dumb idea when they made this new rule, and argued it shouldn't be introduced. There's no clear way to determine the legitimacy of a claim it's someone's family or not in the same house or someone just having two nations. Not only that, but all the alliances proven to be multi's who were made to send out free tech mostly just got deleted, and the people receiving the tech wasn't even punished by either a ban, or removal of all the tech that was sent to them from those nations. Sure, I am not saying just ban someone who received aid from a multi as some may not know, but there's been plenty of instances that it's pretty clear that certain nations were obviously part of the whole multi ring and were the ones benefiting from the tech sent to them before the ban. So what does that really do.....force someone to go about making more multi's and doing the same....not that bad of a deal when they already profited months of free tech before the multi ring was actually removed. I thought and still think it should of remained 1 nation per IP, and unfortunately that would effect people truely having two people on the same IP wanting to play, but would simply cut down on the instances of multi's as well as trying to determine if it's a multi or not.

Yes, there 21 nation alliance with 26% aid slot usage. They have "elite" aids

Someone is starving for attention....I honestly feel bad for how desperate you're for it. You can run your mouth all you'd like, but you refuse to realize the simple fact that no one gives two shits about you or your alliance, nor is anyone scared of you. I'm sorry you're so dense that you cannot understand that your alliance is nothing, will never be anything, and not a single sole cares about you. You're not elite warriors, you do not "own" nor have you "destroyed" any alliance of importance, and merely you have become the new person on here to laugh hysterically at.

Isn't it WWE now?

Normally I'd agree, but when your member wants to boast about your "great warlord" who is sitting in PM, it's quite deserving.

To add...as far as the wiki is concerned, Animalz was founded in 2013, and to go along with that, looking at alliance seniority in your alliance the oldest member and your founder has been 461 days...so a little over a year...so how have you been doing this for over 3 years? I mean, it's one thing to try to make up crap, it's another when it's so easy to prove it wrong. Actually no one I've read has "hated" on your style of play. Any hate has come from your terrible posting and boasting about "destroying" nations and alliances when it's as far from the truth as it can be. To go along with it, your arrogant attitude coming from an alliance of ankle biters that boast like your style is something new to this world or that you actually cause any real damage. At most you're like a knat, annoying and a nuisance, but otherwise harmless. At the sizes you're at, the only people you're effecting are picking on newcomers of the world and discouraging new people from giving it a go. You're not taking on veterans of Bob, you're taking on people who are new to it. If that makes you feel superior among men, then good for you. Funding constant war at your size? Really? It is relatively easy to maintain constant wars at your size, a marginally small warchest could sustain someone at your size, and a few raids on people who don't fight back can easily supply the means to continue. You're correct on one thing, I am posting here because I'm bored, and you'll have supplied the rest of us with some comical posts, otherwise I careless what your alliance does. Hell you have me agreeing with GOONS on something. But since you wanted to bring it to the open stage of OWF, you opened yourself up to it. FYI, I'm far from jealous of you nor your alliance. I'm happy you enjoy the game as you play it, kudos, if only you checked your arrogance and ridiculous posts at the door.

Also how is someone who is sitting in PM some great warlord? I think great panzy would be more suitable.

Maybe get his name spelled right before pushing post. And what's with the coughing...he's in PM because he know what will happen.

Tells everyone he's not hear to talk trash, one sentence later continues to talk trash. Thank you nonetheless for the lulz....it's quite hilarious. You don't get no one cares about you. That, and the damage you cause is so minimal that it can be rebuilt by one aid bomb. No one cares to put the effort into hitting nations of zero importance besides war practice.

Thank you for all you do

Without going through pages of discussions that happened in the WFF topic to look at everything you posted (don't have the time), you seem quite supportive of the right for an alliance to declare war on an alliance doing tech deals and its a legitimate reason to do so. To go along with that, your first comment of "maybe you should of stopped doing tech deals" would not be a comment of someone who supports the right of people to continue tech deals with nations at war...as no where in the first two pages did I ever see you defend ones right to do so, but instead comment that people have the right to attack for doing so. If you truely supported the allowing of tech deals you would have said nothing or spoke up against your side for going after WFF for doing deals. This you didn't do. So, by your words, and following your statement, DBDC has the right to cut off tech supplies. It's quite simple, you used their opinion of tech deals against them, and they used yours against you. The difference is you started it, they responded, and you made a topic calling them out for something you're just as guilty of as them. So this whole topic is pointless, you wanted to use someone's word against them but make a topic calling them out when the same is done to you. To your other part, I truely couldn't tell you. I don't really think it will evolve to that, this seems pretty much dealt with

So how is denouncing DBDC and others who tech deal during war, and then you do it, any different then them doing it and them denouncing you for it? Absolutely nothing. The only difference is you were the first to do the opposite of what you believe in to use it against them, and once you did they turned around and did the same thing to you. You merely want to turn their belief around on them, but call someone out for when they pull the same move on you. You look stupid to call them out that they flip flopped on their view when you were the one to originally do so, and they returned the favor. Besides a simple Sanction, they could easily used your opinion it's an act of war and that RIA as a whole broke their NAP agreement. So far, all I see is penalizing you for pulling a stunt

How aren't you flip flopping? You blantently pointed out that doing tech deals with an alliance during war is an act of war, yet you then go ahead and do it anyway and then come on here claiming it's not. You literally say one thing then do another. You want to use DBDC stance that it's not a act of war when you said it is before, and then whine when the tables are turned and they use your stance that it is an act of war against you. The only difference is, DBDC didn't go out of their way to do such. You being your normal self searching to be in the limelight of things and stirring up !@#$ decided to get involved to get a reaction. Well you got a result, and got sanctioned which tbh is quite minimal compared to your obvious attempt to purposefully piss them off and look to go against your NAP. I'm glad you like to put the rest of RIA in harm for a stunt that only has backfired on you, and the only ones who believe it wasn't a stunt or believe s normal tech deal involves soldiers is the DBDC haters who will blindly go against DBDC. You did tech deals with an alliance at war, which you stated in your opinion is an act of war against their opponent, thus blantently broke your NAP. Either you follow what you believe in, or you follow DBDC's opioion on tech deals during war....you don't get to swap when it works for you and then call someone out. By your new stance of following DBDC's opinion, I expect from now on that you defend any alliance who choose to tech deal during wars and call out anyone who says different or attacks someone for it.

I'm not stating you can't tech deal with whoever you want, nor am I saying you need to knock it off. You and your alliance have the right as anyone else to tech deal with who you want to, when you want to. I read your stance earlier of you were going to continue and your reasoning of believing it wouldn't efffect the outcome (which I agree), and your feeling that it was a simple tech deal to help your nations and not for the purpose of aiding them against their fight with WTF. I was merely alluding to 2 alliances (believe DT probes and the other alliance I forget their name) both who weren't involved in last global war and were doing tech deals amd felt the same as you, and were attacked for it. MH was aiding TOP last war as well, and they were also hit for doing so by IRON (some of which were banned later for being multi's). My point was not to deliberately turn the conversation in a rehash of an earlier one, but was merely letting you know that such actions are looked at as an act of war by many alliances in this game. You called DBDC out for telling you to stop, I was merely pointing out that if people left their hate of DBDC out that they would agree that tech dealing with an alliance at war was an act of war against the opponent. You're free to do as you wish, hell DBDC may not do anything, i don't know. I edited my earlier posts to put our stance, but IRON's opinion is the same as the majority, such actions would be seen as an act of war by helping our enemy. Acting on it would likely be dependent on the situation and how much benefit it was really helping the enemy. As its been mentioned, many still do tech deals during war and it's usually hard to enforce if multiple alliances were doing it, but still seen to IRON as such. You make a valid point. That being said, most wars nowadays don't have valid CB's in the first place, so to honestly say DBDC or last war were the only ones with no or made up CB's would be a lie. Rarely is there any true good CB for wars besides a past grudge. But to your point, if no CB is needed for DBDC to hit WTF, then they don't need one to hit someone aiding them, however doesn't still take away that the majority agree tech deals during war is frowned on. One could argue the one alliance from last war(forget name and on tablet) was minding their own business and just doing tech deals to grow and they were attacked for doing the same. They were told to stop or be attacked, they wanted to continue because they saw them as tech deals and not aiding, and they were attacked. So using same logic, DBDC is not in the wrong for asking the same of someone doing it against them. I really don't care what you do, you're free to do as you choose nor do I know if DBDC really care enough about your deals if you continue to warrant any escalation. I just figured I'd direct methrage to an already had conversation, and how methrage's opinion of tech deals during war differs from the rest as he felt like Cuba was dictating what he can and can't do, yet what he asked was not out of line from others opinion on the matter

If by posters you mean me, I'm not trying to get a reaction,' just responding that such actions at continuing to tech deal could lead to them being hit, and many wouldn't disagree with it. I am merely responding to Meths post here about being told to stop, that was the first I heard DBDC told anyone to stop

I would agree that the amount of tech being sent is not going to be a make or break anything,and the bigger impact is to the growing smaller nations. I just wanted to point out that many, including myself, could see this as an act of war, and was a large discussion last war. I am not sure if DBDC or an ally would act on it if you didn't stop, but the unwritten law agreed on by many is it gives them a legit CB to if they wanted.

Actually it gives DBDC a multitude of reason to do so. XX/TOP side (+majority including IRON) agree it's a legitimate act of war, and thus carried out attacks on DBDC tech dealers, so there should be no one complaining if DBDC enacts the same reasoning and does the same. If anything, if DBDC does act on it, Methrage can thank the people who support that train of thought (majority as stated) for agreeing what they're doing is wrong. If majority (myself included) want to set a rule it's an act of war, then no one should be upset when its enforced against them or others. If something was used against me, I'd use it against my enemies. Also, the majority of the past topic was not people disagreeing it's and act of war (besides who you attacked who were vocal it wasnt) but the fact it was only implemented against a small alliance when there were many others who were that neither were told not to stop nor attacked for doing so. There's a difference in agreeing it's an act of war and disagreeing on choosing to only enforce such rules on a sole alliance when many were doing the same without repercussions. I have no idea if DBDC will go after Methrage and his alliance for continuing, I'm not them. My comment was directed at him for saying that the little bit of tech deals shouldn't make a difference nor forced to stop, yet there are many who would say different. I would expect anyone (including myself) who supported the unwritten rule that tech deals with alliances at war is and act of war, and publicly say to Methrage it's an act of war like I have, and he should know better. I'm merely reminding him that it doesn't matter if he feels the amount of tech deals isn't going to change anything, as doing so could be looked as an act of war so he can choose whatever he wants to

There was just a million page topic about this very thing from last war where majority called aiding someone during a conflict an act of war. I doubt the little bit of tech will have any effect either, nor would it last war, but doing so did result in an alliance being hit for doing so. I guess the feeling on that will be left to DBDC and alies to decide if you continuing to do tech deals is an act of war against them. If you go by the consensus from the other topic, you continuing to do such deals gives a legitimate CB to be attacked.